Explanations for Obedience

Common way of thinking for obedient individual - see themselves as not being responsible for own actions. Instead, put responsibility on someone else - usually figure of authority. M referred to this process of shifting responsibility as 'agentic shift' - involves moving from autonomous state, where person sees themselves as responsible for own actions, to agentic state, sees themselves as agent for carrying out another persons wishes. 

In interviews carried out at end of M's study, when obedient p's asked why had continued to administer electric shocks, typical reply - 'I wouldn't have done it by myself, I was doing as I was told'. Appears feels responsible to authroity directing, but feels no responsibility for actions authority dictates.

Explanation for why adopt agentic state - need to maintain positive self-image. Tempted to do as requested + shock learner, participant may assess consequences of actionf for self-image + refrain. 

However, once participant moved into agentic state, concern no longer relevant. B/c action no longer responsibility, no longer reflects self-image. Actions performed under agentic state are, from participants perspective, virtually guilt-free, however inhumane they might be.

In order to break off experiement, participant must breach commitment made to experimenter. Subject fears if they break off, will appear arrogant + rude, so behaviour not taken lightly. Emotionals, although appear small, help bind subject into obedience.

1st condition needed for person to shift to agentic state - perception of legitimate authority - someone perceived to be in position of social control w/in sutuation. 

Power stems from perceived position in social situation. In M's study, participant enters lab w/ expectation someone will be in charge. Experimenter fills role for them through introductory remarks - this + experimenter's 'air of authority' fits expectation of encountering 'someone in charge' not challenged.

Tendency for people to accept definitions of situation provided by legitimate authority. Although participant performs action, allows authority figure to define meaning. 

On one hand, apparent suffering of learner convinces them they should quit, on other, experiment (LA the subject feels some commitment to), orders to continue - reassures participant learner is fine, not in danger.

If authority figure's commands of potentially harmful/destructive form, for them to be perceived as legitimate, must occur w/in some sort of institutional structure eg university. Clear from M's study this doesn't have to be particularly reputable institution.

One variation of study - moved it from Yale to run-down building where study to be conducted by 'Research Associates of Bridgeport'. Apparently relatively unimpressive firm lacking credentials - still obtained high levels obedience. Possible the category of institution, rather than relative status w/in category that causes participants to obey. Participants may well consider 1 lab to be as competent as another, provided it's a scientific lab.

Tarnow (2000) - studied data from US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) review of all serious aircraft accidents in US b/ween 1978 + 1990 where flight voice recorder (black box) available, + where flight crew actions contributing factor in crash. Found excessive dependence on captain's authority + expertise - 1 2nd officer claimed although noticed captain taking risky approach, said nothing as assumed captain must know what he's doing. NTSB found lack of monitoring errors in 19 of 37 accidents investigated.

Idea of rapidly shifting states fails to explain very gradual + irreversible transition Lifton (1986) found in study of German doctors working at Auschwitz - found had changed from ordinary medical professionals to capable of carrying out vile + lethal experiments on prisoners. Staub (1989) suggests experience of carrying out evil acts over long time responsible, changes way people think + behave.

Can serve as basis for justifying harm. No longer geel own moral values relevant to conduct - when directed by legitimate authority figure to engage in immoral actions - willing to do so. 

Could be sadistic impulses - use situation to express them. Given substance by SPE. W/in few days, guards inflicted rapidly escalating cruelty on increasingly submissive prisoners despite fact no obvious authority figure instructing them. Whatever reason for behaviour, both studies expose unflattering aspectsof human nature.