Outline and evaluate the agentic state as an explanation of obedience. AO3 (8 marks)

Outline and evaluate the agentic state as an explanation of obedience. AO3 (8 marks)

• A. Milgram's participants resisted shocks -> 35% did not go to full 450v suggests they went back to autonomous state so does not fully explain why people obey
• B. However Milgram's study lacks ecological validity as it was an artificial task therefore difficult to generalise
• C. Further evidence -> In Hofling's study 21/22 obeyed doctor over the phone in prescribing lethal drug shows that acting for authority figure so no longer feels responsible for their own actions i.e. agentic state
• D. Obedience may be due to dispositional factors not just social and environmental factors therefore not full explanation why people obey

Answer: (A)

Agentic state is the idea that obedience arises when people shift responsibility to an authority figure, acting as instruments of that person's will and feeling less personal accountability for their actions. The strongest point here is Milgram’s own data showing that not everyone followed orders to the maximum; about 35% did not proceed to the full 450 volts. This indicates the shift into an agentic state isn’t universal—some participants revert to autonomous decision-making or resist, even in an authority-pressure situation. That limitation matters because it shows the explanation can account for much of obedience but cannot fully explain why people resist or stay autonomous in the same circumstances. It also highlights boundary conditions: personal morals, perceived legitimacy of the authority, and moment-by-moment judgments about responsibility influence whether someone enters or remains in the agentic state. The idea remains useful for explaining why many people do comply, especially under legitimate authority, but the resistant cases remind us that obedience isn’t determined solely by this shift in agency.

Agentic state is the idea that obedience arises when people shift responsibility to an authority figure, acting as instruments of that person's will and feeling less personal accountability for their actions. The strongest point here is Milgram’s own data showing that not everyone followed orders to the maximum; about 35% did not proceed to the full 450 volts. This indicates the shift into an agentic state isn’t universal—some participants revert to autonomous decision-making or resist, even in an authority-pressure situation. That limitation matters because it shows the explanation can account for much of obedience but cannot fully explain why people resist or stay autonomous in the same circumstances. It also highlights boundary conditions: personal morals, perceived legitimacy of the authority, and moment-by-moment judgments about responsibility influence whether someone enters or remains in the agentic state. The idea remains useful for explaining why many people do comply, especially under legitimate authority, but the resistant cases remind us that obedience isn’t determined solely by this shift in agency.