Social Content: Milgram’s Agency Theory (1974)

Milgram coined the term ‘agentic state’ to explain the obedience seen in his famous experiments; the individual acted purely as agent, or on behalf of the authority figure, ‘the experimenter’, and absolved himself of his moral responsibility to protect the learner , Mr Wallace. 

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 that his behaviour is under his or her own free will.

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.

Evaluating the theory

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.

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 though 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.