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. 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.