Psychologists have proposed several explanations for why people obey authority figures, even when doing so may go against their personal morals or values. Two key explanations are the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.

AGENTIC STATE

The term agentic state refers to a psychological condition in which an individual acts on behalf of an authority figure or person of higher status, seeing themselves as their agent rather than acting on their own free will. In this state, people feel little or no personal responsibility for their actions and may not experience guilt, even if those actions go against their own moral values.

The opposite of this is the autonomous state, in which individuals act according to their own principles and take full responsibility for their behaviour. The movement from autonomy to agency is known as the agentic shift.

Supporting evidence comes from Milgram’s research into obedience. In his original study, 65% of participants delivered the maximum 450 volts. However, in a variation where a confederate administered the shocks on behalf of the participant, obedience increased to 92.5%. This suggests that when individuals can shift responsibility for their actions onto someone else, their level of obedience is likely to increase.

LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY

The term legitimacy of authority refers to the extent to which an individual is perceived as having the right to give orders and expect obedience. People are more likely to obey those they see as legitimate authority figures because they believe these individuals hold recognised positions of power.

Legitimacy can stem from both the context/setting and the status or appearance of the authority figure. Authority figures are often viewed as more credible when operating in formal or institutional settings, such as universities or government buildings, or when displaying symbols of authority, such as uniforms or professional clothing. These cues signal genuine power and reinforce the expectation to obey.

Supporting evidence for the legitimacy of authority comes from Milgram’s research. In his original study at Yale University, a prestigious institution, 65% of participants administered the maximum 450 volts. When the experiment was moved to a less prestigious location in Bridgeport, Connecticut, obedience dropped to 47.5%. This demonstrates that a reduction in the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure or setting decreases obedience. Further support comes from Bickman (1974), who found that people were significantly more likely to obey an individual dressed as a security guard than one wearing ordinary clothes when asked to perform simple tasks, such as picking up litter. This finding highlights the power of uniforms in conveying legitimate authority and increasing obedience.