Theories of obedience: agency theory
The content to learn is "Theories of obedience, including agency theory and social power theory."
This section teaches agency theory; the next teaches social power theory.
Obedience is the most examined content on the Unit 1 paper (WPS01/01): it supplies short items and the 8-mark question in Section A (Social psychology), and the 12-mark Section C question can ask about it too.
How the Unit 1 paper examines obedience
Part of the paper
What it holds
What it means for this unit
Section A, Social psychology (26 marks)
18 marks of short items (2 to 4 marks each), then one 8-mark item as the last question
Expect two or three obedience questions: a definition, a study fact, a theory applied to a scenario, a strength or weakness
Section B, Cognitive psychology (26 marks)
The same shape on memory
Not obedience
Section C (12 marks)
One 12-mark item on social or cognitive content
"To what extent do [factors] affect obedience?" is one of its two stem types
Front pages
Formulae and statistical tables
Not needed for this unit, though a percentage or ratio of a study's results can be asked
The paper lasts 1 hour 30 minutes for 64 marks, about 1.4 minutes a mark.
Commands set on obedience are State, Name, Describe, Explain, Evaluate, Assess, Discuss and To what extent; the 8-mark item comes in three kinds.
Evaluate and Assess carry no scenario and are marked half knowledge (AO1) and half evaluation (AO3).
Discuss always carries a scenario and is marked half knowledge (AO1) and half application to the scenario (AO2), with no credit for evaluation.
What obedience is
Why do ordinary, decent people sometimes do things they believe are wrong because someone tells them to?
A new shop assistant, Mei Ling, knows a crying customer deserves a refund, yet she refuses it because her manager told her "no refunds this week".
Mei Ling did not change her opinion; she followed an instruction from a person she sees as having the right to give it.
That is obedience.
Obedience differs from conformity (the A2 notes).
In conformity nobody gives an order: you match a group of equals.
In obedience there is a direct instruction and a difference in status between the person giving it and the person carrying it out.
Agency theory: two states of mind
Stanley Milgram set out agency theory in Obedience to Authority (1974) to explain his own results.
He argued that a person can be in one of two states.
- In the autonomous state you act on your own wishes and judge your actions by your own conscience. You feel responsible for what you do.
- In the agentic state you see yourself as an agent carrying out another person's wishes. Your conscience does not switch off, but its focus moves: you now judge yourself by how well you carry out the orders, not by whether the orders are right.
The move from the first state to the second is the agentic shift.
Milgram thought it happens when we enter a hierarchy and take a lower place in it, and that it is not easily reversed once made.
Why would anyone make the agentic shift?
Milgram gave an evolutionary reason and a social one.
1. Hierarchies helped human groups survive. A group in which members accept a leader's decisions can hunt, defend itself and share work. If everyone acted only on their own judgement, the group would fall apart. So a readiness to take orders could have been selected for.
2. Socialisation trains it. Milgram called these the antecedent conditions. From childhood we are rewarded for doing what parents and teachers say and punished for refusing. At school and work we learn that a person in a role (teacher, manager, officer) has the right to direct us. By adulthood the rule "do what the person in charge says" is deeply learned.
3. The immediate situation triggers it. Two things are needed. First, a legitimate authority must be perceived: someone whose position, uniform or setting signals that they are in charge (Milgram's experimenter wore a grey technician's coat in a Yale laboratory). Second, the person must have entered the authority system, usually by choosing to take part, so they feel they have signed up to its rules.
What keeps people obeying: binding factors
Once in the agentic state, why don't people simply walk away when the orders become cruel?
Milgram described binding factors that hold a person in place.
- The sequential nature of the task. Each order is only a small step beyond the last. Refusing at 315 volts means admitting that 300 volts was wrong too, so going on protects the person's view of what they have already done.
- Situational obligations. The person promised to help, and breaking off would be rude and awkward. Most people find open defiance of a polite authority very hard.
What makes people stop: moral strain
The agentic shift is rarely complete.
A person who hears cries of pain feels moral strain: tension between their conscience and the orders.
Milgram's participants sweated, trembled and laughed nervously; 14 of the 40 men in the 1963 study laughed in a way that was clearly not amusement.
People reduce strain in several ways: avoiding looking at the victim, telling themselves the experimenter is responsible, or quietly giving lower shocks than ordered.
When the strain is stronger than the binding factors, the person disobeys.
The diagram below shows the whole chain.
Evidence that supports agency theory
- Milgram's participants handed responsibility upward. Many asked "Who is responsible if he is hurt?", and continued when the experimenter said he was. This is the agentic state in action: once responsibility moved to the authority, the barrier to shocking fell.
- Obedience fell when legitimate authority was weakened. When the experimenter gave orders by telephone (Experiment 7) or an ordinary man gave them (Experiment 13), far fewer people went to 450 volts. Agency theory predicts this: without a present, legitimate authority the agentic shift is weaker.
- Hofling et al. (1966) showed the same in a real hospital. A "doctor" the nurses had never met telephoned and told them to give 20 mg of an unfamiliar drug whose label gave 10 mg as the maximum daily dose; 21 of 22 nurses began to do so before being stopped. The doctor's role, not the content of the order, drove their behaviour.
- Real-life atrocities fit the pattern. Adolf Eichmann, tried in 1961 for organising the deportation of Jews to the death camps, insisted he had only carried out orders. At My Lai in Vietnam on 16 March 1968, American soldiers killed hundreds of unarmed villagers; their officer, Lieutenant William Calley, said he had been obeying orders. At Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (2003 to 2004), guards abused prisoners and claimed they were following instructions from above.
Weaknesses of agency theory
- It describes more than it explains. "People obeyed because they were in the agentic state" and "we know they were in the agentic state because they obeyed" is circular. The agentic state cannot be measured independently of the behaviour it is meant to explain.
- It does not explain who resists. In Milgram's 1963 study 14 of 40 men defied the experimenter in the same situation. Agency theory says little about why, which is why personality (the authoritarian personality, locus of control) and gender are studied as factors.
- Some people obey without giving up responsibility. Many obedient participants were visibly distressed and said they felt responsible; this suggests they had not fully shifted. An alternative account, from Haslam and Reicher, is that people obey when they identify with the authority's goals (here, science), not because they become passive agents.
- Real life is more complex. Eichmann and the soldiers at My Lai acted within a culture of prejudice, propaganda and fear of punishment; reducing their behaviour to an agentic state leaves out these causes.
Applying the theory
The theory has been used to reduce harmful obedience.
Airlines train junior pilots to challenge a captain's error out loud, because crashes have happened when crew deferred to the captain.
Whistleblowing training in organisations stresses that each employee stays responsible for what they do, which works directly against the loss of responsibility the agentic state brings.
Links. Social power theory (next section) explains where an authority's power comes from; agency theory explains what happens in the person who obeys.
The two work together in answers to Section C questions on factors affecting obedience.
- Obedience: carrying out the direct instruction of a person perceived to be in authority, usually because refusing seems to carry consequences.
- Agency theory: Milgram's (1974) explanation that people obey because they shift from an autonomous state into an agentic state, in which they act as an agent of an authority and feel the authority is responsible for their actions.
- Agentic state: in Milgram's words, "the condition a person is in when he sees himself as an agent for carrying out another person's wishes".
- Autonomous state: the state in which a person acts on their own wishes and feels responsible for the consequences of their actions.
- Moral strain: the tension felt when an order conflicts with a person's own conscience; when it outweighs the binding factors, the person disobeys.
State what is meant by the term 'obedience'.
(1)
Top answer (1 of 1). "Following the instruction of a person you see as having authority over you."
(AO1 1)
Weaker answer (0 of 1). "Obedience is when you obey someone in charge."
The answer uses the word it is meant to explain, so it shows no understanding.
Outcome: a definition names what is done (carrying out an instruction) and the defining feature (a person perceived to have authority).
Kofi is a junior ward assistant in a hospital in Accra.
A senior nurse in uniform tells him to move a patient's bed into a corridor so that the room can be cleaned.
Kofi thinks the patient is too unwell to be moved, but he does it.
Describe, using agency theory, why Kofi obeyed the senior nurse.
(2)
Top answer (2 of 2).
1. Kofi sees the uniformed senior nurse as a legitimate authority on the ward, so he moves from an autonomous to an agentic state and acts as her agent, moving the bed as told. (AO2 1)
2. He goes against his own view that the patient is too unwell because he now feels the senior nurse, not he, is responsible for what happens to the patient. (AO2 1)
Weaker answer (0 of 2). "People obey because they are in the agentic state and give up responsibility."
Accurate theory, but nothing about Kofi, the nurse, the uniform or the bed, so it is generic and scores nothing.
Outcome: every mark joins a theory term to a detail from the scenario in the same sentence.
Explain one strength of agency theory as an explanation of obedience.
(2)
Top answer (2 of 2). "It is supported by Milgram's telephonic instructions variation, in which obedience fell from 26 of 40 at baseline to 9 of 40 when the experimenter gave orders by phone (AO1 1), so the theory's claim that a present, legitimate authority is needed for the agentic shift has credible experimental evidence behind it.
(AO3 1)"
Weaker answer (1 of 2). "It is supported by Milgram's research, which makes it valid."
The supporting evidence is named, but "which makes it valid" is a bare label: it does not say what the evidence shows or why that strengthens the theory, so the AO3 mark is lost.
Evaluate agency theory as an explanation of obedience in real life.
(8)
Plan. Four AO1 points (states; agentic shift and its triggers; binding factors; moral strain), each followed by its AO3 chain (Holocaust and My Lai; Hofling; circularity; individual differences), then a conclusion that weighs.
Model answer.
Agency theory says people can be in an autonomous state, acting on their own conscience, or an agentic state, acting as the agent of an authority (AO1).
This fits accounts of real atrocities: Eichmann, who organised the deportation of Jews to death camps, said at his 1961 trial that he had only followed orders, which is exactly the loss of personal responsibility the theory describes (AO3).
The agentic shift is triggered by a perceived legitimate authority, such as a uniform or an institution, and by having entered the authority's system (AO1).
Hofling et al.
(1966) found 21 of 22 nurses began to give an overdose ordered by phone by an unknown doctor, so the theory explains obedience in a real workplace, not only in a laboratory, which raises its ecological validity (AO3).
Binding factors such as the small steps of the task and the wish not to break a promise keep people in the agentic state (AO1).
This explains why soldiers at My Lai continued once the killing had started.
However, the explanation is circular: we infer the agentic state from the obedience it is supposed to explain, so the theory is hard to test (AO3).
Moral strain arises when orders clash with conscience, and people disobey when strain outweighs the binding factors (AO1).
Yet the theory cannot say in advance whose strain will win: 14 of Milgram's 40 men defied the same experimenter.
Personality and culture are left out, so the theory explains the average response better than any one person's (AO3).
Overall, agency theory gives a well-supported account of why many ordinary people obey harmful orders from a legitimate authority, in the laboratory and in real events.
Its weakness is that it describes the state of mind more than it predicts behaviour, and it ignores individual differences.
It is best seen as an explanation of the situation's power, which needs personality and culture added to explain real-life cases fully.
Level: Level 4 (7-8).
Accurate, thorough AO1 across the theory; each point carries a developed AO3 chain with named evidence; strengths and weaknesses are both developed; the conclusion weighs them.
An answer that only named the two states and then listed evaluation would stay in Level 2.
Read the theory named in the stem and use only that theory.
In an agency theory item, the words that earn marks are autonomous state, agentic state, agentic shift, legitimate authority, responsibility, binding factors and moral strain, each tied to a scenario detail; "legitimate power" or "expert power" belongs to social power theory and scores nothing here.
If a scenario stem names no theory ("Describe why Kofi obeyed"), agency theory, social power theory or both together are all credited, as long as every point is tied to the scenario.
- Giving social power theory to an agency theory stem (or the reverse). Examiners report this every series. Check the theory's name before you write; only the theory asked for is credited.
- Naming the two states and stopping. "He went from autonomous to agentic" earns at most one mark. Say what the agentic state does: the person acts for the authority and feels the authority is responsible.
- Defining obedience with the word "obey". That repeats the term. Say "following an instruction from a person perceived to be in authority".
- Thinking the agentic state switches conscience off. Milgram's participants suffered moral strain; the conscience stays, but it judges how well orders are carried out, not whether they are right.
Check your understanding
1. Describe what is meant by the term 'agentic shift'. (2) Total [2]
2. Aiyana works in a bank in Toronto. Her branch manager tells her to delete the record of a customer's complaint before an inspection. Aiyana thinks this is dishonest, but she deletes it. Describe, using agency theory, why Aiyana obeyed her branch manager. (2) Total [2]
3. Explain one weakness of agency theory as an explanation of obedience. (2) Total [2]
4. A student writes: "Agency theory says people in the agentic state have no conscience, so they feel nothing when they obey." Explain one reason why this statement is wrong, using Milgram's own observations. (2) Total [2]
5. Explain two reasons why people make the agentic shift. (4) Total [4]
6. Hamid is on a school trip to a museum in Muscat. The teacher in charge tells the group to stay behind a rope while a tour guide speaks. Hamid's friend Rashid steps over the rope to take a photograph; when the teacher sees him, Rashid apologises and steps straight back. Later, the guide asks the group to carry heavy boxes out to the bus; the teacher has already left. Hamid helps at first, then refuses to carry any more. Discuss, using agency theory, the behaviour of Hamid and Rashid. You must make reference to the context in your answer. (8) Total [8]
Answers
1. The move from the autonomous state, in which a person acts on their own conscience, into the agentic state (AO1 1), in which they act as the agent of an authority figure and see that authority as responsible for their actions (AO1 1).
2. Award 1 mark for each point tied to the scenario (AO2 2). For example: Aiyana sees the branch manager as a legitimate authority in the bank, so she shifts into the agentic state and deletes the record as his agent (1); she overrides her belief that it is dishonest because she sees the manager as responsible for the deletion, not herself (1). A generic account of agency theory with no Aiyana, bank or record scores 0.
3. Identification (AO1 1) plus justification (AO3 1). For example: the theory is circular, because the agentic state is inferred from the obedience it is used to explain (1), so it cannot be measured on its own and the theory is hard to test or falsify (1). Or: it does not explain individual differences, since 14 of Milgram's 40 men defied the same authority (1), so the theory explains the average response but not why particular people resist (1).
4. Identification (AO1 1) plus justification (AO3 1). Milgram observed signs of moral strain such as sweating, trembling and nervous laughter in obedient participants (1); this shows their conscience was still working and causing tension, so the agentic state changes what the conscience focuses on (carrying out orders well) but does not remove it (1).
5. Two points, each identification (AO1 1) plus justification (AO3 1). Reason 1: socialisation, the antecedent conditions (1); from childhood people are rewarded for following parents and teachers, so by adulthood following a person in charge is a learned habit that is triggered in a new hierarchy (1). Reason 2: the presence of a legitimate authority (1); a uniform, title or institution signals that the person has the right to give orders, so the individual accepts a lower place in the hierarchy and acts as that person's agent (1). Also creditable: an evolutionary advantage of hierarchies; voluntary entry into the authority system creating a sense of obligation.
6. AO1 4 + AO2 4, levels (no credit for evaluation). Indicative AO1: autonomous and agentic states; agentic shift triggered by a perceived legitimate authority; loss of responsibility; binding factors; moral strain and the role of the authority's presence. Indicative AO2: Rashid starts in an autonomous state, acting on his own wish to photograph, but when the teacher sees him he shifts to an agentic state at once and steps back, because the teacher on the trip is a legitimate authority and Rashid has entered her authority system by joining the trip; the teacher's presence matters, since Rashid obeys only when seen; Hamid helps the guide at first, perhaps because the guide is part of the trip's authority system and the task begins with small requests (binding factors); once the teacher has left, the person giving the orders is a guide with weaker legitimacy over the pupils, so Hamid's strain at heavy, unfair work outweighs the binding factors and he returns to the autonomous state and refuses. Level 4 (7-8) applies the theory to both boys' actions throughout, using different parts of the theory for different events; an answer that describes the theory with only the names, or adds strengths and weaknesses, stays in Level 2.