Milgram (1974) used this perspective to explain the behaviour expelled by the participants when continuing to administer increasingly severe shocks, even after the ‘learners’ protesting and once the experimenter had exclaimed that they would take responsibility, allowing the ‘teacher’ to take an agentic shift from autonomy (Reicher & Haslam, 2012). Nissani (1990), suggests that the human cognitive system is not fully reliable to recognise potentially malevolent authority despite them being supposedly benevolent, subsequently indicating that the participant’s behaviour may be conceptual, rather than as a result of forsaking their morals. Russell (2009) argues however, that this theory of agentic state should be replaced with the term ‘autonomous denial’, implying that the participants did, in fact, understand the implications of their actions, however, chose to deny them in hope of both avoiding confrontation with the experimenter, whilst adjacently dismissing blame for any wrongdoings, thus leaving argument open for whether or not the participants knowingly contributed to any immoral behaviour. Additionally, Milgram’s (1974) account of obedience implies links to the proximity of authority figures, determining that participants were more likely to obey when close to the experimenter. Holloway (2005), identifies, suggesting that when the ‘victims’ are within close proximity, then obedience drops. Reicher & Haslam (2012) discuss this, suggesting that when the participant is together with the ‘authority figure’ then they are far more inclined to classify themselves as the same.
Milgram (1974) used this perspective to explain the behaviour expelled by the participants when continuing to administer increasingly severe shocks, even after the ‘learners’ protesting and once the experimenter had exclaimed that they would take responsibility, allowing the ‘teacher’ to take an agentic shift from autonomy (Reicher & Haslam, 2012). Nissani (1990), suggests that the human cognitive system is not fully reliable to recognise potentially malevolent authority despite them being supposedly benevolent, subsequently indicating that the participant’s behaviour may be conceptual, rather than as a result of forsaking their morals. Russell (2009) argues however, that this theory of agentic state should be replaced with the term ‘autonomous denial’, implying that the participants did, in fact, understand the implications of their actions, however, chose to deny them in hope of both avoiding confrontation with the experimenter, whilst adjacently dismissing blame for any wrongdoings, thus leaving argument open for whether or not the participants knowingly contributed to any immoral behaviour. Additionally, Milgram’s (1974) account of obedience implies links to the proximity of authority figures, determining that participants were more likely to obey when close to the experimenter. Holloway (2005), identifies, suggesting that when the ‘victims’ are within close proximity, then obedience drops. Reicher & Haslam (2012) discuss this, suggesting that when the participant is together with the ‘authority figure’ then they are far more inclined to classify themselves as the same.