# data[].attributes.headline
Milgram’s experiment was sparked by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes. Milgram proposed that obedience can be due to a number of reasons one of being Agentic State. Agentic State is the mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e as their agent. Milgram concluded that because Eichmann had been in charge of death camps yet still defended himself as only obeying orders and not seeing that it was his fault, it was clear to say that Eichmann’s obedience was due to Agentic State. There is research support by Blass and Schmitt (2001) where they showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who was responsible for the harm to the leaner. The students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant because they believed the participant was only acting on behalf of the experimenter who was the authority figure within the experiment. This is a strength because it can be concluded that Agentic State is a reason why people obey but then also regard their behaviour as not their fault or responsibility. However, within Milgram’s study agentic state does not explain why some participants chose not to obey and therefore can only be applied to some situations of obedience reducing the external validity if Milgram’s study.

# data[].attributes.subject
Milgram’s experiment was sparked by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes. Milgram proposed that obedience can be due to a number of reasons one of being Agentic State. Agentic State is the mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e as their agent. Milgram concluded that because Eichmann had been in charge of death camps yet still defended himself as only obeying orders and not seeing that it was his fault, it was clear to say that Eichmann’s obedience was due to Agentic State. There is research support by Blass and Schmitt (2001) where they showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who was responsible for the harm to the leaner. The students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant because they believed the participant was only acting on behalf of the experimenter who was the authority figure within the experiment. This is a strength because it can be concluded that Agentic State is a reason why people obey but then also regard their behaviour as not their fault or responsibility. However, within Milgram’s study agentic state does not explain why some participants chose not to obey and therefore can only be applied to some situations of obedience reducing the external validity if Milgram’s study.

# data[].attributes.body
However, another mental state is the autonomous state which is where a person feels independent and free. So the person in the autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their actions. Many participants in Milgram’s study would have been in this state however, due to the experimenter being present, the participants recognised this as an authority figure and therefore shifted from an autonomous state to agentic because the participants thought he had a greater power, this is known as the agentic shift. This is a strength in Milgram’s research due to participants involved becoming distressed when shocking the learner, Mr Wallace as they at first felt responsible for all their actions, however the shift took place when the experimenter used prods and therefore the pressure of the authority figure caused a shift to agentic state as they believed they were acting on the experimenters behalf so they continued to obey as they felt less responsible. However, It can be argued as a limitation also, as it does not help Milgram understand why some participants involved chose not to obey and to give no shock or weaker shocks than they should have. These findings can be applied to real life situations as it explains why an authority figure causes a shift in a person’s mental state and why in some cases people choose to obey however, it may be limited as Milgram’s findings did not completely show why some participants chose not to obey.

# data[].attributes.body
Legitimacy of Authority can help understand why participants chose to obey in Milgram’s study of obedience. This means that people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. Within Milgram’s study the experimenter who wore the white lab coat in the room as the participant who acted as the teacher still held legitimate authority over the participant and this caused a higher level of obedience compared to when the experimenter was not present or wore normal clothes. A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it can help to account for the cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way up to the voltage scale compared to the 65% in Milgram’s initial study. On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants- (85%). This highlights in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. The cross-cultural research then increases the external validity to Milgram’s research as it identifies how much an authority figure can influence obedience.

# data[].attributes.body
A limitation of the agentic shift explanation is that it has a limited explanation. This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many of the research findings. For example, Hofling et al (1966) studies nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21/22 nurses obeying). The agentic shift predicts that, as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process. But this was not the case. Furthermore, the agentic state does not explain why some of the participants did not obey because humans are all social animals and involved in social hierarchies and so should all obey. Therefore, this suggests that, at best, the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.

# data[].attributes.headline
One strength to support the theory of agentic state is that there’s research to support what Eichmann said about how he felt as though what he did wasn’t his fault and it was an authority figure that made him do it. Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was most responsible for the harm to Mr.Wallace. The students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant, due the experimenter having legitimate authority. This is a strength because it proves that the presence of authority figure makes us change our behaviour and we act in a certain way that we wouldn’t normally act like. Therefore increasing the external validity of this theory due to it being able to be applied in more than one situation. However, there are some limitations that don’t support agentic state one being that there is evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and a agentic shift. Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101 where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland. They didn’t have direct orders to do this showing how it might not always be the case that the presence of the pressure of an authority figure makes us behave in a certain way. The consequence of this is that it limits the external validity of the explanation. We can’t always use the explanation of the agentic state to explain why people obey orders as it’s been proven that it doesn’t apply to every situation.  Another limitation is that the agentic shift doesn’t explain many of the research findings. For example it does not explain why some of the participants in Milgram’s study did not obey, humans are social animals and involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey. It also does not explain the findings from Hofling’s study. The agentic shift explanation predicts that, as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case. The consequence of this is that the explanation of the agentic shift can only be accounted for in some situations of obedience and not all. Furthermore limiting the external validity of the explanation. 

# data[].attributes.subject
One strength to support the theory of agentic state is that there’s research to support what Eichmann said about how he felt as though what he did wasn’t his fault and it was an authority figure that made him do it. Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was most responsible for the harm to Mr.Wallace. The students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant, due the experimenter having legitimate authority. This is a strength because it proves that the presence of authority figure makes us change our behaviour and we act in a certain way that we wouldn’t normally act like. Therefore increasing the external validity of this theory due to it being able to be applied in more than one situation. However, there are some limitations that don’t support agentic state one being that there is evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and a agentic shift. Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101 where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland. They didn’t have direct orders to do this showing how it might not always be the case that the presence of the pressure of an authority figure makes us behave in a certain way. The consequence of this is that it limits the external validity of the explanation. We can’t always use the explanation of the agentic state to explain why people obey orders as it’s been proven that it doesn’t apply to every situation.  Another limitation is that the agentic shift doesn’t explain many of the research findings. For example it does not explain why some of the participants in Milgram’s study did not obey, humans are social animals and involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey. It also does not explain the findings from Hofling’s study. The agentic shift explanation predicts that, as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case. The consequence of this is that the explanation of the agentic shift can only be accounted for in some situations of obedience and not all. Furthermore limiting the external validity of the explanation. 

# data[].attributes.body
Another strength for the agentic state is that there is research support. This is because Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a class a video of Milgram’s study and also asked them to say who they believed was responsible for the ‘harm’ of Mr Wallace. The students agreed that it was the experimenters fault. They also pointed out that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority as well as expert authority. This is a strength because it supports that legitimate authority is a legitimate reason for obedience, as the students had said. Therefore this research support can increase the external validity of the agentic state.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legitimate authority is the authority that society gives to people in certain roles such as teachers or police officers or parents. It’s agreed by society that these people are in a position of power over others meaning they have legitimate authority. One of the problems with legitimate authority is that it gives power to people to punish others such as a judge or a police officer. We accept that these people have that authority so we obey them as they have legitimate authority and are able to punish us for any wrongdoings we do.

# data[].attributes.subject
Legitimate authority is the authority that society gives to people in certain roles such as teachers or police officers or parents. It’s agreed by society that these people are in a position of power over others meaning they have legitimate authority. One of the problems with legitimate authority is that it gives power to people to punish others such as a judge or a police officer. We accept that these people have that authority so we obey them as they have legitimate authority and are able to punish us for any wrongdoings we do.

# data[].attributes.headline
Another strength of legitimate authority is that it can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. This is because Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai massacre; which occurred in 1968 where as many as 504 people were shot coming out of their homes, the US soldiers had the same excuse as the Nazis which that they were just following orders, can be understood in the terms of power hierarchy of the US army. This is a strength because Kelham and Hamiltons crucial point proves that people are more likely to obey people who we perceive as an authority figure, and is justified because in this example they got the orders from a higher soldier. Therefore, increases the external validity as a variable towards obedience, as research shows people will obey an order from a legitimate authority figure at any costs.

# data[].attributes.subject
Another strength of legitimate authority is that it can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. This is because Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai massacre; which occurred in 1968 where as many as 504 people were shot coming out of their homes, the US soldiers had the same excuse as the Nazis which that they were just following orders, can be understood in the terms of power hierarchy of the US army. This is a strength because Kelham and Hamiltons crucial point proves that people are more likely to obey people who we perceive as an authority figure, and is justified because in this example they got the orders from a higher soldier. Therefore, increases the external validity as a variable towards obedience, as research shows people will obey an order from a legitimate authority figure at any costs.

# data[].attributes.body
Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility. The shift between autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift, Milgram suggested that this occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This person has a greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy; in Milgram’s study the legitimate authority was the experimenter wearing the grey lab coat. This is a strength supporting Milgram’s study of obedience as it suggests that due to the authority of the person and their uniform people obeyed and diverted to the agentic shift, just like Adolf Eichmann who was in control of the Nazi death camps but however was just ‘obeying orders’

Therefore, the Agentic Stage can be applied to real-life situations as it has a high rate of external validity and can be generalised to a wider population, due to other cultures experiencing high levels of obedience to an authority figure.

# data[].attributes.body
Psychology PEEL Answer

Agentic state is when people obey destructing orders because they don’t take responsibility so they believe they are acting for someone else. This attitude can be shown through Milgram’s study. People were in an agentic state within Milgram’s study as they were asked to shock ‘Mr Wallis’ for $4.50 an hour every time he got the answer wrong. Every time the participants delayed in giving the shock the experimenter would use this prods in order: Please continue, The experiment requires you to continue, It is absolutely essential that you continue, You have no other choice but to continue. This made participants believe they had no other choice to obey. Therefore, this makes Milgram’s study more realistic due to the fact Milgram was studying about the nazis’ behaviour and a lot of them would be in an agentic state to kill all those innocent Jews.

Another strength to Milgram’s study is that there was a level of legitimate authority. This is shown as the experimenter was wearing a lab coat which we represent as a level of power. This makes it so we feel more obliged to obey as they hold a higher level of legitimate authority than us. This may have caused an influence for people to increase the voltage hence why 63% went to 450V. This shows that uniform is a huge part when it comes to obedience which could’ve one of the reasons why the nazi’s behaved the way they did. This can conclude that a legitimate authority can increase the chances of people getting into an agentic state.

Another way of people is demonstrating that people are in an agentic state is through the responsibility was not on the participants. This is shown as when the participants began to question what if something happened to the man the experimenter ensured them that all responsibility was on him.
This means that people are more likely to increase the voltage as they are not held accountable. Their guilt is soon eased as nothing will happen to them if something happens to ‘Mr Wallis’ then don’t have the consequences to take care of. Therefore we can conclude that obedience is influenced by the whether or not people are held accountable therefore whether they are in the agentic state or the autonomous state.

# data[].attributes.body
A strength behind the explanation for legitimacy of authority is that it has cross-cultural research support. Legitimacy of authority is often dictated by a social hierarchy that tells us who we should obey more; social hierarchy is something shared across many cultures, however the degree of how obedient a person is differs from country to country. For example, Kilham and Mann replicated Milgram’s experiment in Australia and found that only 16% of participants went to the highest voltage, whereas Mantell replicated the experiment in Germany and found that 85% of individuals went all the way. This is a strength as it shows how acceptance of legitimate authority changes from culture to culture, which reflects how different societies are raised and influenced in different ways. Therefore this increases the cultural validity of the explanation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Firstly, there is research support to back up the theory of agentic state.Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner Mr Wallace.The students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant. The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority - the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore he had legitimate authority, but it was also due to expert authority because he was a scientist.This shows that although the teacher was committing the act, they were the one administering the shocks to the learner they were not perceived by the students as responsible as they were in agentic state. They were purely an ‘agent’ acting in the place of another person - in this case the experimenter. The experimenter also placed immense pressure to encourage the participant to keep going, this is a manipulation tactic to encourage someone to go into agentic state. In addition to this, a known characteristic of someone in an agentic state is experiencing high levels of anxiety, this is because they realise what they are doing is wrong but feel too powerless to obey. These characteristics were presented by the participants in Milgram’s experiment when they began to reject the experimenter and question whether it was okay to be doing this.Therefore, Milgram’s study provides proof for people going into agentic state due to the pressure of a figure that holds legitimate authority.

# data[].attributes.subject
Firstly, there is research support to back up the theory of agentic state.Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner Mr Wallace.The students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant. The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority - the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore he had legitimate authority, but it was also due to expert authority because he was a scientist.This shows that although the teacher was committing the act, they were the one administering the shocks to the learner they were not perceived by the students as responsible as they were in agentic state. They were purely an ‘agent’ acting in the place of another person - in this case the experimenter. The experimenter also placed immense pressure to encourage the participant to keep going, this is a manipulation tactic to encourage someone to go into agentic state. In addition to this, a known characteristic of someone in an agentic state is experiencing high levels of anxiety, this is because they realise what they are doing is wrong but feel too powerless to obey. These characteristics were presented by the participants in Milgram’s experiment when they began to reject the experimenter and question whether it was okay to be doing this.Therefore, Milgram’s study provides proof for people going into agentic state due to the pressure of a figure that holds legitimate authority.

# data[].attributes.headline
However, one limitation agentic state is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviours of the naziscan in fact not be explained by legitimate auhtority. This is because in 1998 Mandel described one scenario involving a German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where these men obeyed and shoot innocent civilians in a small town located in Poland; even though they were not given direct orders, and also were given the option to be assigned a new duty if they preferred.This is a limitation of the explanation for agentic state because these men were not acting for an authority figure but out of free will, even when given the option to change their duties. Therefore, decreasing the external validity for the explanation of obedience in the sense of an agentic state, as it cannot be generalized outside of Milgram’s obedience study, as it does not represent variety of cultures.

# data[].attributes.subject
However, one limitation agentic state is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviours of the naziscan in fact not be explained by legitimate auhtority. This is because in 1998 Mandel described one scenario involving a German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where these men obeyed and shoot innocent civilians in a small town located in Poland; even though they were not given direct orders, and also were given the option to be assigned a new duty if they preferred.This is a limitation of the explanation for agentic state because these men were not acting for an authority figure but out of free will, even when given the option to change their duties. Therefore, decreasing the external validity for the explanation of obedience in the sense of an agentic state, as it cannot be generalized outside of Milgram’s obedience study, as it does not represent variety of cultures.

# data[].attributes.headline
Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way, meaning that people in certain positions hold more power than others. People such as parents, teachers, police officers and bouncers all have legitimate authority. The authority they hold is called legitimate authority, meaning that  the society has granted them that authority. Most of us accept that the commands given by authority figures need to followed. A consequence of legitimate authority is that some people are granted the power to punish other people. Most of us accept that the police and the courts have the power to punish wrongdoers. As a result of this, we are willing to give up some of our independence in order to be safe. The result of this is that there is a hierarchy in society, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, through parents, teachers, and adults in general. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way, meaning that people in certain positions hold more power than others. People such as parents, teachers, police officers and bouncers all have legitimate authority. The authority they hold is called legitimate authority, meaning that  the society has granted them that authority. Most of us accept that the commands given by authority figures need to followed. A consequence of legitimate authority is that some people are granted the power to punish other people. Most of us accept that the police and the courts have the power to punish wrongdoers. As a result of this, we are willing to give up some of our independence in order to be safe. The result of this is that there is a hierarchy in society, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, through parents, teachers, and adults in general. 

# data[].attributes.body
However, a limitation of agentic shift is that it cannot explain all of Milgram’s findings. Agentic shift occurs when someone changes from an autonomous state to an agentic state due to them perceiving someone else as having legitimate authority; this does not explain why some participants failed to obey whatsoever despite being pressured by the authority of the experimenter to abandon their autonomy. In addition to this, it does not explain why Hofling's nurses obeyed without showing signs of discomfort as the agentic shift explanation predicts. This is a limitation because it shows that the agentic shift explanation cannot be generalised to all situations and is therefore a limited explanation as it does not take into account other factors that affect levels of obedience. This could be considered as a reductionist explanation because it attempts to boil down why people obey to much simpler factors, such as social hierarchy and legitimate authority, when there are many other factors that need to be taken into consideration, such as a person’s private and public behaviours/beliefs, and their individual personality.

# data[].attributes.headline
A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it helps to explain cultural differences in obedience. This is because many studies show the difference in how much a person obeys to an authority figure. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) recreated Milgram’s study and found that only 16% of participants went to the top voltage in Australia. In contrast, Mantel (1971) found that 85% of Germans went all the way. This shows that authority is more accepted in some cultures than others. This is a strength because it reflects the way that different societies are structured and how they are brought up to perceive authority figures. Therefore the findings from these cross-cultural replications help increase the external validity of the explanation.

# data[].attributes.subject
A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it helps to explain cultural differences in obedience. This is because many studies show the difference in how much a person obeys to an authority figure. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) recreated Milgram’s study and found that only 16% of participants went to the top voltage in Australia. In contrast, Mantel (1971) found that 85% of Germans went all the way. This shows that authority is more accepted in some cultures than others. This is a strength because it reflects the way that different societies are structured and how they are brought up to perceive authority figures. Therefore the findings from these cross-cultural replications help increase the external validity of the explanation.

# data[].attributes.body
One strength of the agentic theory is that it has research support. In 1974, Milgram conducted an experiment to see how easily society would obey to an authoritative figure. After conducting the experiment Milgram discovered there were high levels of obedience when directed by an authoritative figure and that 65% of participants obeyed all orders given until the experiment was finished. This is a strength as the findings into obedience Milgram concluded showed that the majority of participants had obeyed instructions given even though they knew that their actions were distressing and immoral. This supports the agentic theory as he observed that participants became agents of the authoritative figure. For example, multiple participants had said they were “only doing as I was told” showing that participants gave up their responsibilities and choice to obey the authority figure. Therefore, the agentic theory is able to be supported by research support and shows that society will obey an authority figure even if it means they are instructed to carry out distressing actions.

# data[].attributes.body
Firstly one benefit is that there us research support for the theory. Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to a group of students and asked them who they thought was to blame for the harm of the learner. The students blamed the professor rather then the teacher who was actually ‘shocking’ the learner. They also said that this was because the professor had legitimate authority as he was top of the heigherarchey so therefore it was his fault. This is a strength as it supports the idea of legitimate authority and Milgram’s study. Therefore increasing the validity of the study into legitimate authority.

# data[].attributes.body
A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it takes into consideration cultural differences. This is because many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicates Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale. On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants- 85%. This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. Furthermore, this reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authoritative figures. Therefore, such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the legitimacy of authority explanation.

# data[].attributes.body
Agentic State

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.

Legitimate Authority

Milgram’s variations investigating location and uniform highlight an important factor in obedience research – legitimate authority. For a person to obey an instruction they need to believe that the authority is legitimate and this can be affected by multiple variables.

In Milgram’s original research, which took place at Yale University, the percentage of participants administering the full 450 volts was high (65%). However, when the experiment took place in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, obedience levels dropped significantly (48%). This change in location reduced the legitimacy of the authority, as participants were less likely to trust the experiment. In addition, when the experimenter in Milgram’s research was replaced by another participant, in ordinary clothes, the obedience levels dropped even further (20%). The lack of a uniform and questionable position of authority reduced the credibility of the authority, which meant the participants were far less likely to obey.

# data[].attributes.body
Additionally, this idea of legitimate authority and agentic state, is not affected by proximity. This was proven in a separate study, in which 22 nurses were asked over the phone to administer potentially life threatening medicine. Out of these 22 nurses, 21 obeyed. This is a strength as is proves that milgram’s ideas about normal people doing questionable things correct. However, it can also be considered a limitation, as it contradicts Milgram, due to the fact he hypothesised people would not obey, due to the fact there was less conflict in a phone call. Either way this alternate research, improves the external validity of the study.

# data[].attributes.headline
An agentic state is where obedience to destructive behaviour occurs because they do not take responsibility. They believe that they are acting for someone else, meaning that they are an ‘agent’. an ‘agent’ may experience high levels of anxiety when they realise they’re doing something wrong, but may feel powerless to do something. An example of an ‘agent’ is the man who inspired Milgram’s initial interest in obedience, Adolf Eichmann.

# data[].attributes.subject
An agentic state is where obedience to destructive behaviour occurs because they do not take responsibility. They believe that they are acting for someone else, meaning that they are an ‘agent’. an ‘agent’ may experience high levels of anxiety when they realise they’re doing something wrong, but may feel powerless to do something. An example of an ‘agent’ is the man who inspired Milgram’s initial interest in obedience, Adolf Eichmann.

# data[].attributes.headline
One strength of legitimate authority explanation is that it is useful explanation into the cultural differences into obedience. This is because many studies show that different countries differ in the levels of obedience to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study, into obedience, in Australia. They found that only 16% of participants went all the way to 450V, rather than 65% from what Milgram found. However, Miranda (1981) found that 90% of spanish students obeyed. This shows that in some cultures, legitimate authority is more accepted, and entitled to demand obedience from individuals who have lower power within the society hierarchy. Therefore, this research increases the external validity of the legitimate authority explanation, as it can be further generalized to the population.

# data[].attributes.subject
One strength of legitimate authority explanation is that it is useful explanation into the cultural differences into obedience. This is because many studies show that different countries differ in the levels of obedience to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study, into obedience, in Australia. They found that only 16% of participants went all the way to 450V, rather than 65% from what Milgram found. However, Miranda (1981) found that 90% of spanish students obeyed. This shows that in some cultures, legitimate authority is more accepted, and entitled to demand obedience from individuals who have lower power within the society hierarchy. Therefore, this research increases the external validity of the legitimate authority explanation, as it can be further generalized to the population.

# data[].attributes.body
A limitation of legitimate authority is that it can be destructive. Legitimate authority  is when people in certain  eg. policemen,  hold authority over the rest of us, the authority they wield is often shown by what they wear eg uniform. Problems arise within society when people in positions of legitimate authority become corrupt and cause people to behave in ways which are cruel and dangerous, possibly even to harm others. Within Milgram’s study the presence of destructive authority was clearly seen when the verbal prods were used such as ‘it is critical to the study that you continue’, which caused participants to behave in ways that went against their personal moral beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
A strength of agentic state is that it has research support conducted by Blake and Schmitt. When a person is in agentic state they believe that any actions they commit are in the name of somebody of a higher authority; therefore they believe the person they commit the action for is to blame rather than themselves. This was then proven by Blake and Schmitt who showed a video of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was to blame for harming Mr Wallace, the experimenter or the participant. Rather than blame the participant who was actually administering the shock to Mr Wallace, the students all blamed the experimenter as he had more legitimate authority in the situation and therefore had more responsibility. This is a strength as it supports the explanation for agentic state by providing evidence that society sees those with more legitimate authority responsible for the actions that those acting for them commit. Therefore this research support increases the validity of the explanation as it suggests that it can be applied to different situations, such as Milgram’s study, to assess who has more responsibility over the consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
One strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that there is research support for it. Bless and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace. The students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant. This is a strength because it supports the idea that people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us, and we allow these authoritative figures to exercise social powers over the rest of us, but with this also comes responsibility. Furthermore, the students that Bless and Schmitt (2001) tested indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority because the ‘experimenter’ was top of the hierarchy. Therefore, they recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation.