Evaluate Agency theory



Essay fragmentWhat is going on here?One strength of agency theory is that the major claims are supported by research evidence, much of which has been conducted in well controlled laboratory setting, suggesting high levels of reliability.For example, Milgram claimed that that obedience may be viewed as “biologically pre-programmed”, stating that obedience is adaptive, as early humans needed to obey rules in order to maintain social harmony and stable society. He believed that the ability to make the agentic shift in the face of author had evolved as natural selection would have favoured humans who avoided confrontation by doing as they were told in order to preserve social harmony. This claim is supported by the fact that obedience, rather defiance, was the most common behaviour in his famous study where 100% of participants obeyed orders to administer increasingly painful electric shocks to a stranger for making mistakes on a word learning task up to a maximum of 300V, which is enough to kill a person. He also found that a 65% were willing to go all the way to the final switch on the shock generator, (450V). This evidence is important as it shows that despite individual differences in personalities, gender and cultural background for example, obedience was the usual response for all participants demonstrating that Milgram’s claim about obedience being innate may be correct. Evaluate Agency theory (written for bandmarking)So on the one hand it may seem that the research evidence supports the idea that the majority of people make the agentic shift in the face of a perceived legitimate authority figure, however, Milgram’s research has been criticised by Orne and Holland who say that giving electric shocks is an artificial task that is not part of the everyday experience of most people and therefore the high levels of obedience may not be seen in situations which are more natural.However, this claim is refuted by research evidence such as that of Hofling (1966) who found that 95% of nurses would obey an order over the phone given by an unknown doctor, to administer a double dose of an unknown drug (Astroten) thus breaking four of their ward rules. This is a very high rate of obedience in a real life setting with high ecological validity, suggesting that those who doubted the credibility of Milgram’s original finding may have been mistaken.This said both Milgram and Hofling’s work was conducted in the USA and therefore it could be argued that the evidence base for the theory is flawed as it is ethnocentric. In order to truly establish whether obedience is a universal feature of human nature due to its survival value, the results of cross cultural studies must be considered. One would expect to find little difference in levels of obedience cross-culturally despite differing beliefs and values.This is also supported as many studies return very similar obedience rates, e.g. in Italy the rate was 80% in the study by Ancona and Pareyson and in Holland the rate was 92% (Meeus and Raaijmakers, 1986). These are both individualist cultures which arguably value personal autonomy and independence yet they are very high obedience rates suggesting that obedience may be due to nature not nurture as Milgram says.In contrast, it should be noted however, that some studies do show intriguing cultural differences, such as Kilham and Mann (1974) who found a much lower than expected obedience rate in their study in Australia, (males 40% and females 16%, average 28%).This demonstrates that Milgram’s other claim, that socialisation is also important in shaping obedience may also have some support as there is a degree of variation across cultures.Some of Milgram’s other claims are also supported by the research for example he argues that when faced with legitimate authority people make the agentic shift from the autonomous state (where they behave independently and make their own decisions about how to behave based on their sense of right and wrong) to the agentic state (where they act on behalf of the authority figure and absolve themselves of responsibility). His idea that authority must be perceived as legitimate is supported by his variation study where he found that only 47.5% of people obeyed when the study was removed to a less prestigious setting in Bridgeport and also when the experimenter was exchanged for an ordinary man giving orders, who has not authority over the participant, the rate went down to just 20%.Likewise, the idea that we may commit acts of destructive obedience due to the fact that we absolve ourselves of responsibility when in the agentic state and assume that blame lies with the authority figure is supported by the fact that when Pps were in the same room as the learner and confronted more starkly with the immediate consequences of their actions, the obedience rate also dropped significantly to 40% and 30% when they had to hold his hand down onto the shock plate.So it is clear to see there is much evidence from research studies to support Mulgeam;s agency theory however, Milgram’s theory is also able to account for real life evetns and this is a further strength of his work.For example, Zimbardo argued that the soldiers who committed atrocities against the Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib were in the agentic state and they were not evil personalities or bad apples as some others had argued. This said, Milgram’s theory does not explain very well why some people are actually defiant when faced with authority. For example, 35% of Pps in Milgram’s study and one nurse in Hofling’s study were able to regain their sense of autonomy and freewill. Agency theory fails to explain this. Furthermore, real life presents further cases of individuals who have been defiant whilst risking their own lives for others, e.g. Paul in the Rwandan genocide and Oscar Schindler during the Holocaust. These acts are perhaps better explained by appealing to personality factors such as desire for personal control which Burger (2009) showed was important in predicting defiance.It would appear then that agency theory alone cannot explain some cases particularly of disobedience, and work by psychologists such as Adorno suggest that individual differences could be explained by looking at relationships in childhood. Life experiences clearly do have a role to play in mediating the biological urge to obey as Gretchen Brandt, one of Milgram Pps, said “some of us have seen too much pain” in her post study interview, when explaining why she dropped out. She had grown up in Nazi Germany.Therefore it is apparent that individual differences in the people who are given orders may be important after all and similarly we should consider the individual differences in the authority figures themselves. Milgram argued that a person should have legitimate authority in order to elicit obedience from others. However, in real life some figures seem to be extremely commanding yet have no legitimate author, e.g. 900 people followed orders from Jim Jones, the 70s cult leader to commit suicide, by drinking poison. This man had no real authority yet arguably had secured his power over them due to his charismatic personality. This shows that others theory of obedience such as social power theory and charismatic leadership theory are also important in predicting outcomes in real world situations.In conclusion, whilst agency theory accounts well for the very high levels of obedience seen in many studies and real world events, the theory is not scientific as its more descriptive than explanatory. For example saying it says we are obedient when we are in the agentic state and basically defines agentic state as the state of obeying order; this is known as a circular argument. Also, agency theory does not explain why some people can switch back from agency to autonomy with greater ease than others and this is a major problem with the theory as fostering this could stop acts of destructive obedience. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download