Discuss the legitimacy of authority and agentic state explanations of obedience. Refer to Freddie's behaviour in your answer. [16 marks]

ESSAY HINT: For this question, you should explain and apply both legitimacy of authority and the agentic state. Use research evidence, real-life examples and alternative explanations, such as locus of control or the authoritarian personality, to develop your evaluation. Avoid lengthy descriptions of Milgram’s procedures and generic methodological points, such as ethical issues, unless they directly evaluate the explanations.

The legitimacy of authority explanation suggests that people are more likely to obey individuals whom they believe have the right to give orders. Authority is usually seen as legitimate when it comes from a recognised position within a social hierarchy. Legitimacy may come from both the setting and the status or appearance of the authority figure. Freddie ignores his classmate because the classmate is of equal status and has no recognised authority over him. In contrast, the deputy head holds a senior position within the school and therefore has the legitimate authority to enforce school rules. The deputy head’s high-visibility jacket may also act like a uniform, making their authority more obvious. This helps to explain why Freddie immediately stops pushing and waits quietly in line.

However, legitimacy of authority is unlikely to be the only explanation for obedience. Dispositional factors may also affect whether someone obeys. For example, people with an authoritarian personality tend to be more submissive towards authority figures, while people with a high internal locus of control may be more likely to resist pressure. Freddie may therefore obey partly because of his personality, such as having an authoritarian personality or an external locus of control. Another student who does not have these characteristics might be less likely to obey the deputy head.

The agentic state explanation suggests that people may enter a psychological state in which they see themselves as acting on behalf of an authority figure. They view themselves as the authority figure’s agent rather than as someone acting independently. As a result, they feel less personally responsible for their behaviour. The opposite is the autonomous state, in which individuals act according to their own principles and accept responsibility for their actions.At first, Freddie appears to be acting autonomously. He chooses to push the other students and rejects his classmate’s attempt to stop him by saying, “You can’t tell me what to do.” However, when he sees the deputy head, he immediately changes his behaviour and follows the school rules “without thinking”. This could suggest that Freddie has entered an agentic state and is allowing the deputy head’s authority to control his behaviour.

One limitation of the agentic state explanation is that obedience varies across cultures. Kilham and Mann’s Australian replication of Milgram’s study found that only 16% of participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock. In contrast, Mantell found that 85% of German participants obeyed to the maximum level. This suggests that cultural differences influence how people respond to authority. Some cultures may socialise people to be more accepting of authority than others. Therefore, although the agentic state may help to explain Freddie’s behaviour, children raised in different cultures may respond differently to the same situation. Overall, both explanations can account for Freddie’s obedience. The deputy head’s recognised position makes them a legitimate authority figure, while Freddie’s immediate and apparently automatic response could suggest a shift towards an agentic state. However, individual differences and cultural influences also affect obedience, so neither explanation is complete on its own.