Agency theory of obedience

Two states of mind

Milgram proposed that people are in one of two states:

• Autonomous state: the person acts freely and takes responsibility for their own actions.
• Agentic state: the person acts as an agent carrying out the wishes of someone else, and sees the authority figure as responsible.

The change from autonomous to agentic is the agentic shift. It is triggered when an order comes from a figure seen as a legitimate authority who is believed to accept responsibility.

Moral strain and binding factors

Moral strain is the conflict felt when an order goes against conscience: the person wants to obey and also wants to see themselves as a good person. It can show as shaking, sweating or weeping.

Binding factors keep a person in the agentic state:

• legitimacy of the authority (uniform, institution, reputation)
• socialisation: obedience learned from childhood through rewards and punishments
• gradual commitment: small steps make the next step harder to refuse
• buffers that put distance between the person and the victim

Evidence and evaluation

Support: in Milgram (1963) 65% of participants went to 450 V, and when hesitant participants asked who was responsible they were told the experimenter was. When a confederate pressed the switches and the participant only read the questions, obedience rose to 92.5%, as responsibility felt further away. Variations that lowered legitimacy (telephone orders, a rundown office) lowered obedience.

Weaknesses:

• It describes obedience rather than explaining why some people resist; it ignores personality.
• Moral strain was seen in obedient participants, so the agentic state did not simply remove strain.
• Hollander (2015), re-analysing Milgram's recordings, found that obedient and disobedient participants both protested in many ways, so obedience may not be a simple on or off state.
• Milgram's data come from artificial laboratory tasks, which limits how far the theory can explain real atrocities.

Worked example

A nurse gives a patient a higher dose of a drug than she thinks is safe because a senior doctor ordered it. Explain her behaviour using agency theory.

1. Identify the authority: the senior doctor is a legitimate authority in a hospital.
2. Agentic shift: she moves from the autonomous to the agentic state and sees the doctor as responsible.
3. Binding factors: the hospital setting and her training (socialisation) keep her in the agentic state.
4. Moral strain: she may feel anxious because the order conflicts with her own judgement.

Answer: She has made an agentic shift: she sees herself as the doctor's agent, so she feels the doctor, not she, is responsible.

Check yourself

1. What is the agentic state?
   • Acting as the agent of an authority figure, who is seen as responsible
   • Acting freely and taking responsibility for your own actions
   • Changing behaviour to fit in with a majority
   • Changing private beliefs after listening to a minority
   Show answer

   Acting as the agent of an authority figure, who is seen as responsible. In the agentic state the person passes responsibility to the authority figure.

2. Which condition is needed for an agentic shift, according to Milgram?
   • The person is in a group of at least three people
   • The person has an internal locus of control
   • The person giving orders is seen as a legitimate authority
   • The order is given in writing
   Show answer

   The person giving orders is seen as a legitimate authority. Milgram said the authority must be seen as legitimate and willing to take responsibility.

3. During Milgram's study many participants sweated, trembled and laughed nervously. Which concept in agency theory explains this?
   • Moral strain
   • Social desirability
   • Informational social influence
   • Demand characteristics
   Show answer

   Moral strain. The conflict between the order and their conscience caused visible distress.

4. Which is an example of a binding factor?
   • A participant leaving at 150 V
   • A participant scoring high on empathy
   • Payment being withheld
   • Gradual commitment: the shocks rose in small 15 V steps
   Show answer

   Gradual commitment: the shocks rose in small 15 V steps. Small steps made each next step hard to refuse, keeping people agentic.

5. In the variation where a confederate pressed the switches, 37 of 40 participants continued to the end. What percentage is that?
   Show answer

   92.5 %. 37 / 40 x 100 = 92.5%.

6. Give one weakness of agency theory as an explanation of obedience.
   Show answer

   It cannot explain why some people disobey even when given orders by a legitimate authority, because it ignores individual differences such as personality.. Agency theory struggles to explain the 35% who resisted and individual differences in obedience.

Practise with instant feedback Print this lesson

Sources

• Pearson Edexcel International Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Level in Psychology specification (issue January 2026)
• Pearson International A Level Psychology component guide: WPS01
• Psychology revision notes: Milgram and obedience (agency theory)
• Lumen Learning (Simply Psychology text): The Milgram shock experiment
• IAL Psychology revision site: Theories of obedience

Last updated 8 November 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us.