What makes good people turn cruel? As the world learned about the devastating cruelty committed by the Nazis during World War II, this was the question many psychologists were asking themselves. Milgram wasn't convinced by the explanation that German people that engaged in these cruel acts were inherently evil or that the antisemitism distorted their judgement to a point where they saw genocide as a reasonable choice.
Achieve better grades quicker with Premium
Geld-zurück-Garantie, wenn du durch die Prüfung fällst
Review generated flashcards
Start learning or create your own AI flashcards
Team Milgrams Agency Theory Teachers
According to Milgram, the cruel acts so many people engaged in during the Holocaust can be explained by obedience. Today we will take a closer look at Milgram's Agency Theory, which attempts to explain this phenomenon.
Fig. 1 - Milgram sought to understand obedience to authority figures.
Agency theory is based on Milgram's views on obedience to authority figures. During his earlier experiments, Milgram observed participants go through moral dilemmas and experience an agentic shift, where they obeyed the orders of authority figures as they became agents of the authority figure. The participants placed the consequences of their actions on the authority figure, not themselves.
When we make decisions about how to behave, we typically consider the consequences of our actions. This is because we feel responsible for our own behaviour. Milgram called this the autonomous state.
We are in an autonomous state when we feel personally responsible for our own decisions and actions. In an autonomous state, we are thinking for ourselves.
Despite participants arriving at Milgram's experiments in an autonomous state, they experienced an agentic shift, which we will discuss more below.
However, what happens if someone else has decided and orders you to follow them? Milgram argued that in situations when we are asked to do something by a legitimate authority figure, we don't always think about what the consequences of that behaviour will be.
A reputable figure has decided, and we are just following orders. This is what Milgram called the agentic state, caused by an agentic shift.
We shift into the agentic state when we follow orders from authority and attribute the consequences of the action to the authority but not to ourselves. We become agents for them, acting on their behalf without taking personal responsibility.
Legitimate authority is a person in power who has the right to give out orders.
The capacity for an agentic shift from an autonomous to an agentic state was proposed as an evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans to create organised and hierarchical social structures.
Stanley Milgram didn't necessarily believe we are born to obey, but rather obedience develops when our capacity to obey is reinforced by our experiences in hierarchical societies that reward obedience.
Milgram's Agentic Theory accounts for both the influence of nature (the evolutionary capacity to obey) and nurture (societal reinforcement of obedience).
Milgram noted certain factors were required to maintain the agentic state, known as binding factors. After entering an agentic state, participants were kept in the state due to:
Not all authority figures will be moral and just. Yet, our need to obey often doesn't discriminate between orders we agree with and those we don't agree with.
So, what happens when we are asked to do something we don't consider moral? Milgram proposes that such scenarios result in an internal conflict, resulting in a moral strain when people are in an agentic state.
Moral strain is the psychological distress which can be experienced when one follows an order from an authority that is against one's own beliefs.
To cope with the discomfort of a moral strain, people can enter into denial and refuse to accept the reality of their behaviour. Others may display avoidance behaviour, try to minimise their involvement, or engage in less severe actions than ordered.
According to Milgram, entering the agentic state can relieve people of some of the guilt associated with their behaviour and decrease the effects of moral strain.
To test out his theory, Milgram conducted a famous electric shock study in 1963. The study was conducted in a laboratory, and forty male participants participated in the experiment.
Fig. 2 - Milgram used electric shocks in his infamous study on obedience.
It was concluded that the agentic theory could predict people's behaviour as most people obeyed, even when asked to do something cruel and unethical.
Later Milgram conducted 19 more study variations investigating the influence of different situational factors on participants' obedience. Some of the situational factors that influenced obedience included proximity to the victim, location of the experiment and the uniform worn by the authority.
When the participants had to be near the learner, the proportion of participants who obeyed dropped by over a half.
The participants' obedience also dropped if the experiment location was less legitimate.
When the orders were given by an ordinary-looking person rather than a professional-looking experimenter in a lab coat, the level of obedience dropped to only 20%.
The importance of wearing a uniform was later supported by the study of Bickman (1974). In his study, a male researcher dressed either in a guard uniform, a milkman uniform or no uniform asked strangers on the streets of Brooklyn to perform an action.
He found that if the man giving out orders was dressed in a guard uniform, 76% of people obeyed; if he was dressed in a milkman uniform, 47% of people obeyed; and if he was wearing no uniform, only 30% of people obeyed.
Milgram's agency theory has received a lot of support. However, some argue that it doesn't fully account for the research findings and people's behaviour in the real world. Let's examine the strengths and limitations of Milgram's theory.
One strength of Milgram's theory is that it produces testable experimental predictions. The theory predicts that if ordered by an authority, the average person will be capable of committing even immoral acts as the responsibility is shifted to the authority figure.
Moreover, the theory has been largely supported by existing studies, including the studies conducted by Milgram and the naturalistic Hofling (1966) study. The theory is also supported by cross-cultural research (Blass, 2012).
Hofling (1966) conducted a field study to test Milgram's predictions in a naturalistic setting. Twenty-two nurses were asked by the researcher, posing as an unverified doctor on the phone to administer twice the maximum amount of an unauthorised drug to a patient. Twenty-one of them obeyed the order, even though it was against the hospital rules.
Blass (2012) reviewed ten studies that applied Milgram's paradigm to study obedience in different countries worldwide.
They found Milgram's predictions to generalise cross-culturally. The mean obedience rate in the US was around 61%; in comparison, the mean obedience rate in non-US studies was 66%.
Another strength of the theory is its ability to explain to some extent why people engaged in historical atrocities like the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide.
It was reported that during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, 800,000 members of the Tutsi minority were slaughtered over a span of 100 days. Around 200,000 civilians were involved in the killings.
Many of them later reported the pressure from the authorities as a strong motive for their actions. However, some perpetrators reported being motivated by personal motives like hatred and prejudice.
The Agency Theory has been criticised for portraying people as passive and supporting the idea of social determinism. The theory doesn't account for people's personal motives to commit immoral acts. People can be motivated not only by the pressure from the authority but also by their personal feelings of prejudice and hatred, as the reports of the Rwanda genocide showed.
Moreover, the theory doesn't explain individual differences in obedience. After all, not everyone in the Milgram study obeyed the authority.
The Agency Theory focuses mostly on situational factors influencing obedience and can be contrasted with theories focusing on individual factors, like the Authoritarian Personality Theory, which predicts that some people are more likely to obey due to their personal characteristics.
Milgram's Agency Theory does not account for individual differences in obedience and can be criticised for supporting the idea of social determinism.
Sign up for free to gain access to all our flashcards.
Is Milgram's experiment reliable?
Milgram's experiment used a standardised procedure which allows replications that could corroborate its reliability. Since the replications of the original experiment found similar findings, it can be concluded that Milgram's experiment was reliable.
What can we learn from Milgram experiment?
Milgram's experiment suggests that if an agentic shift occurs, people will obey authority figures even if personally they consider the orders to be immoral. Milgram's studies support his Agency Theory which has some potential to explain cruel behaviour associated with historical events, like the Holocaust or the Rwanda genocide.
Why was Milgram's experiment criticized?
Milgram's experiment can be criticised for the use of a biased sample, artificial environment, the use of deception and for not protecting the participants from psychological harm. Later it was also uncovered that participants were coerced by the experimenter to administer the shocks even after they refused to; some were also lied to and assured the learner wants to continue.
What is a strength of Milgram's agency theory?
The strengths of Milgram's theory include its ability to produce testable predictions and explain people's behaviour during historical events. It is also supported by many studies on obedience conducted across cultures.
How does Milgram's study support agency theory?
Milgram's experiment found that most participants obeyed the authority even when asked to administer painful and potentially lethal electric shocks. This is not a decision that most people would make on their own however when ordered by an authority figure, participants followed the orders, suggesting they entered into an agentic state.
At StudySmarter, we have created a learning platform that serves millions of students. Meet the people who work hard to deliver fact based content as well as making sure it is verified.
Lily Hulatt is a Digital Content Specialist with over three years of experience in content strategy and curriculum design. She gained her PhD in English Literature from Durham University in 2022, taught in Durham University’s English Studies Department, and has contributed to a number of publications. Lily specialises in English Literature, English Language, History, and Philosophy.
Get to know Lily
Gabriel Freitas is an AI Engineer with a solid experience in software development, machine learning algorithms, and generative AI, including large language models’ (LLMs) applications. Graduated in Electrical Engineering at the University of São Paulo, he is currently pursuing an MSc in Computer Engineering at the University of Campinas, specializing in machine learning topics. Gabriel has a strong background in software engineering and has worked on projects involving computer vision, embedded AI, and LLM applications.
Get to know Gabriel