Evaluating explanations for obedience

RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR THE AGENTIC STATE (STRENGTH): One strength of the agentic state explanation is that it is supported by research evidence. For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed students footage from Milgram's study and asked them who was responsible for the harm caused to the learner. Most participants identified the experimenter rather than the teacher as responsible. This suggests that the agentic state could explain the behaviour of participants in Milgram's study, because they saw the experimenter as responsible for their actions. Therefore, Blass and Schmitt's findings support the view that the agentic state is a valid explanation of obedience.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OBEDIENCE (LIMITATION): One limitation of the agentic state explanation is that obedience appears to vary across cultures. For example, Kilham and Mann's (1974) replication of Milgram's study in Australia found that only 16% of participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock, whereas Mantell (1971) found that 85% of German participants did so. This suggests that obedience is influenced by cultural differences in how authority is viewed, with some societies socialising individuals to be more obedient to legitimate authority figures than others. This means that the agentic state may not provide a complete explanation of obedience, as cultural background also seems to play an important role. Therefore, cross-cultural findings suggest that the agentic state cannot fully explain obedience on its own.

RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR THE ROLE OF UNIFORM (STRENGTH): One strength of situational explanations of obedience is that there is research support for the role of uniform. For example, Bickman (1974) carried out a field experiment in New York City in which confederates dressed in different outfits, including a suit, a milkman's outfit and a security guard's uniform, asked members of the public to carry out small tasks such as picking up litter or putting money in a parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the person dressed as a security guard. This suggests that a uniform increases the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure, making people more likely to obey. Therefore, Bickman's findings support Milgram's view that uniform is an important situational variable that affects obedience.

HIGHLY STANDARDISED AND REPLICABLE (STRENGTH): One strength of Milgram's research is that it was highly standardised and replicable. For example, Milgram systematically changed one variable at a time across his variations in order to examine its effect on obedience. The procedures were highly standardised, with the same basic method used each time and other variables kept as consistent as possible. Across all of the studies, more than 1,000 participants took part. This shows that Milgram used a consistent and carefully controlled procedure, making it possible to compare obedience rates across the variations in a systematic way. Therefore, the standardised procedures used in Milgram's research make the findings easier to replicate and increase confidence in the consistency of the results.