One weakness of the agentic shift theory is that it doesn’t explain all of Milgram’s findings. One example of this is it doesn’t tell us why only 65% only went up to 450v. As well as this, it also doesn’t support Hofling et al’s study, as it tells us that the nurses should have shown some signs of distress and anxiety due to being told to give a lethal dose of medication to patients, but they never did. This means that there must be other reasons for the reasons of why people obey. Agentic state theory cannot be the only factor of obedience rates. This weakness tells us that there are many reasons to obey and makes the theory lack reliability and truthfulness.We may need to adopt a more holistic view as the agentic state explanation is incomplete and too simple (reductionist). 

One strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it gives us information on cultural differences in obedience. There are many different studies that show how the obedience levels differ in different countries. E.g. Kihan and Mann’s (1974), which is a replication of Milgram’s study, showed only 16% of Australian participants went up to 450v on the electric shock system. There is even more research by Mantell (1971) that showed 85% of German participants continued up to 450v. This shows us that different cultures have different levels of authority. Cross-cultural research is shown so therefore increases the population validity of the research. 

Another strength  of legitimacy of authority is cultural differences. Legitimacy of authority is a useful account of differences in obedience. Many studies have shown different countries have a different extent to which people ,traditionally, obey authority. An example of this when Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study in Australia. The results of their study showed that only 16% of the participants went up to the full 450 volts compared to 65% of American participants. Whilst Mantell found that obedience rates in Germany were much higher at 85%. These results show that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and are entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.

However, one weakness of the agentic state is the obedience alibi. There is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and agentic shift. In 1998 Mandel described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101. In this incident men obeyed the orders they were given to shoot civilians in a Polish town. This was despite them not giving direct orders to do so. This is a weakness because the soldiers did feel like they had responsibility over their actions so were not acting as an agent for an authority figure. As a result, people may do something  despite them having a choice. This means that people have a choice whether to follow orders given by an authority figure or not so agentic state is not an explanation for obedience. 

In Milgram's original experiment, 65% of participants administered a 450 volt shock and were arguably in an agentic state. However, in one variation, an 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 from 65% to 92.5%. This highlights the power of shifting responsibility, as these participants were able to shift their responsibility onto the one delivering the shocks and so continue to obey instructions as they felt less responsible.

Legitimate authority is when a person is made to believe that the authority is legitimate and can be affected by multiple variables. In Milgram's initial research, the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts was 65% however when the experiment took place in a run down building, obedience levels dropped to 47.5%. This change in location reduced the legitimacy of authority as the participants were less likely to trust the experiment. When Milgram left the experiment and was replaced by another person, dressed casually, the obedience levels dropped even further, to 20%. The lack of uniform and questionable authority reduced the credibility of the authority and so the participants were much less likely to obey.

The theory of legitimacy of Authority as an explanation of obedience follows that we are taught from an early age who is at the top of the social hierarchy. For example, we accept that teachers, police officers and security guards all have legitimate authority. We trust them to exert their power over us appropriately and are willing to give up our independence if the do so. One strength is that there is research evidence to support the legitimacy of authority explanation for obedience. Research by Blass & Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students.  The students were more likely to blame the experimenter for the harm caused to the participant. This shows that the students viewed the experimenter as a more legitimate figure of authority than the participant, supporting the idea that responsibility is shifted to higher perceived power. Such has real-life applications and can help explain historical atrocities committed such as individual soldiers obeying rules given by figures of authority during the Second World War and in the Holocaust.

 Another strength of this explanation is that the useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Mandy studies show that countries differ in the 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 participants when to the end. On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure of 85% in germany. This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitle to demand obedience from individuals. Such supportive findings from cross-culture research increases the population validity as the findings can be generalised to a wider population such as other cultures and genders.

 

Another strength of the legitimacy of authority is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.  Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. Many researchers have replicated milgram's procedure in different parts of the world, for example Kilham and Mann (1974) found that in australia only 16% of participants went all the way to 450v. However Mantell (1971) found that his german participants were more likely to accept an authoritative figure as 85% of his participants went to 450v. This shows that societies are structured differently and shows  the different ways in which children are raised to perceive authority figures. Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increases the validity of the explanation for obedience.

A limitation of the agentic shift is it does not explain all research findings. Hoflings study involved nurses being instructed to give a lethal dose of medication to a patient from a ‘doctor’ over the phone. 21/22 nurses were going to obey until they were stopped, the nurses show an absence in moral strain which should have occurred if the nurses were in an agentic state . This is a limitation as it suggests that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience. This decreases the external validity as the findings can only be generalised to a specific setting, which shows a lack of ecological validity and mundane realism.

Katie

There is research to support the legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience. Blass and Schmitt 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 due to them being at the top of the hierarchy and because he was a scientist. This shows that they recognised the experimenter as a legitimate authority figure, who was also the cause of obedience. This is a strength as it increases the external validity of legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience. 

A limitation of the research to support the agentic state as an explanation of obedience is that it doesn’t explain much of the research findings. The explanation does not explain why some participants did not obey when given orders. The agentic state does not explain Hofling’s results (21 out of 22 nurses obeyed) as the agentic state predicts the nurses in this experiment should have felt anxious when handed responsibility over to the doctor, as it was such a destructive process. However this was not the case. Therefore the agentic state can only be accountable for an explanation of obedience in certain situations, and we should adopt a more holistic view of obedience.The agentic state explanation is incomplete and reductionist (too simple). 

A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it is a useful account of the cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show people in different countries have different obedience rates to authority, traditionally. Kilham and Mann imitated Milgram’s study in Australia and found that only 16% of participants went all the way to top voltage, compared to the 65% in Milgram’s original study. Contrarily Mantell got a result of 85% in Germany. This shows that some cultures are more likely to accept authority as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience. This highlights how some societies are structured and how children around the world are raised differently to perceive authority figures. This cross cultural research increases the validity of this explanation. 

 

Blass and Schmitt showed a film of milgrams study to students and asked them to identify who they felt responsible for the harm to the learner, mr wallace. They blamed the ‘experimenter’ and indicated that the responsibility was due to the legitimate authority (the experimenter was on top of the hierarchy therefore we put our trust in them to be correct) but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist). They recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience.

The agentic shift doesnt explain many of the research findings. For example it doesnt explain why some of the participants did not obey. The agentic shift explanation also does not explain the findings from Holfling. The agentic shift explanation predicts that nurses handed over responsibility to the octo, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to milgrams but this wasnt the case. This implies the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.

PEAL paragraphs - for the evaluation of the agentic state and legitimate authority as an explanation of obedience 

Blass and Schmitt (2001) found that when students were showed a film of Milgram’s study they blamed the experimenter for the harm that came to mr wallace. 

this shows that the students thought the authority of the experimenter was the reason for obedience, this supports the legitimate authority theory. 

this is a strength because it increases the external validity of legitimate authority as it is not just milgram who thinks it is a valid explanation. the students do too.

(2)  another strength of legitimate authority is that it can show how obedience can lead to real life crimes.

Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that war crimes such as the My Lai massacre can only be understood in terms of the power structure of the US army, a clear example of legitimate authority in action.

this shows that the theory of legitimate authority is applicable to real life situations.

not only does this increase the ecological validity of the theory but it also means that understanding legitimate authority can help us to prevent such crimes from happening in the future. it has practical applications 

(3)  one weakness of the agentic state is that it is a limited explanation and leaves many research findings unaccounted for.

for example the agentic state does not explain why people don’t obey. in Milgram’s study there were people who supposedly should have been agents of the experimenter who didn’t obey. And if humans are social animals who are involved in social hierarchies then why is it that all do not obey all the time?

this shows that the agentic state is a limited explanation for obedience. perhaps more research or theorising is needed in regards to the variables, conditions or dispositions (ie individual differences) that affect how likely it is for someone to take on an agentic state when under the influence of an authority figure. this would maybe lead to an explanation of why some people disobeyed that still allows us to use the agentic state.  

this is a weakness because the agentic state cannot be used to explain things that it doesn’t account for. it can only be used as an explanation for why people obey and cannot be applied otherwise. this means the agentic state lacks external validity. 

Legitimacy of authority is an explanation of obedience offered by Milgram. Milgram suggested that we are more likely to obey a person who has a higher position or status in a social hierarchy.When the teacher changed the uniform in the study, the obedience rate dropped. However some people in power of authority, exploit and exert their power over us but we trust them to exert power over us appropiately. Because we believe their authority is legitimate we behave in an agentic state, which shows the explanation of obedience that we obey people who are higher than us in the social hierarchy.