Moral disengagement


Moral disengagement

Moral disengagement is a term from social psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context, by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct by disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation.[1]

Generally, moral standards are adopted to serve as guides and deterrents for conduct. Once internalized control has developed, people regulate their actions by the standards they apply to themselves. They do things that give them self-satisfaction and a sense of self-worth and refrain from behaving in ways that violate their moral standards. Self-sanctions keep conduct in line with these internal standards. However, moral standards only function as fixed internal regulators of conduct when self-regulatory mechanisms have been activated, and there are many psychological processes to prevent this activation. These processes are forms of moral disengagement of which there are four categories.[2]

Contents

Reconstructing conduct

One method of disengagement is portraying inhumane behavior as though it has a moral purpose in order to make it socially acceptable. For example, torture, in order to obtain information necessary to protect the nation’s citizens, may be seen as acceptable. Voltaire is quoted as saying, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”.[2]

Another disengagement technique is advantageous comparison. Moral judgments of conduct can be influenced by structuring what the conduct is compared against. In social comparison the “morality” of acts depends more on the ideological allegiances of the labelers than on the acts themselves.[3]

Displacing or diffusing responsibility

Another dissociative practice, known as displacement of responsibility, operates by distorting the relationship between actions and the effects they cause. People behave in ways they would normally oppose if a legitimate authority accepts responsibility for the consequences of that behavior. Under conditions of displaced responsibility, people view their actions as the dictates of authorities rather than their own actions.[2]

Additionally, there is the practice of diffusion of responsibility. This is when the services of many people, where each performs a task that seems harmless in itself, can enable people to behave inhumanely collectively, because no single person feels responsible. An example of this is in executions where multiple persons have distinct roles in the execution process so no individual is responsible.[4]

A similar technique is collective action. Any harm done by a group can be blamed on the other members so people act more harshly when responsibility is collective than when individualized. For example, a juror sentencing a person to death can blame the “jury” rather than him or herself as a juror.[4]

Disregarding or misrepresenting injurious consequences

Another method of disengagement is through disregard or misrepresentation of the consequences of action. When someone pursues an activity harmful to others for personal gain they generally either minimize the harm they have caused or attempt to avoid facing it. Instead, they will recall prior information given to them about the potential benefits of the behavior. People are especially prone to minimize harmful effects when they act alone. It is relatively easy to hurt others when the detrimental results of one's conduct are ignored.[2]

Dehumanizing or blaming the victim

A final disengagement practice, dehumanization, is applied to the targets of violent acts and depends on how the perpetrator views the people toward whom the harmful behavior is directed. Once dehumanized, divested of human qualities, people are no longer viewed as persons with feelings, hopes, and concerns but as subhuman objects which do not evoke feelings of empathy from the perpetrator and can be subjected to horrendous treatment.[5]

References

  1. ^ Fiske, S. (2004). Social Beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  2. ^ a b c d Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1999PSPR.pdf
  3. ^ Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in Terrorism Retrieved October 12, 2007 from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1990MoralDis.pdf
  4. ^ a b Bandura, A. (in press). Moral disengagement in state executions. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/EncyMD.pdf
  5. ^ Stanford University. (1991). How People Do Bad Things Retrieved October 12, 2007 from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/91/911203Arc1039.html

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Israel's unilateral disengagement plan — Part of a series on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Arab–Israeli conflict Israeli–Palestinian peace process …   Wikipedia

  • Self-efficacy — is the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals. [Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (5th ed.), [http://wps.prenhall.com/chet ormrod edpsych 5/0,5159,1775072… …   Wikipedia

  • Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict — This article is about the effects of the Turkish PKK conflict; for the main article, see Turkish PKK conflict.The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) is an armed militant group founded in the 1970s and led, until his capture in 1999, by Abdullah Öcalan …   Wikipedia

  • Milgram experiment — For Milgram s other well known experiment, see Small world experiment. The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an… …   Wikipedia

  • Albert Bandura — (born December 4, 1925 in Mundare, Alberta, Canada) is a Canadian psychologist specializing in social cognitive theory and self efficacy. Education Bandura graduated with a B.A. from the University of British Columbia with the Bolocan Award in… …   Wikipedia

  • HISTORICAL SURVEY: THE STATE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS (1880–2006) — Introduction It took the new Jewish nation about 70 years to emerge as the State of Israel. The immediate stimulus that initiated the modern return to Zion was the disappointment, in the last quarter of the 19th century, of the expectation that… …   Encyclopedia of Judaism

  • Israel — /iz ree euhl, ray /, n. 1. a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean: formed as a Jewish state May 1948. 5,534,672; 7984 sq. mi. (20,679 sq. km). Cap.: Jerusalem. 2. the people traditionally descended from Jacob; the Hebrew or Jewish people. 3 …   Universalium

  • international relations — a branch of political science dealing with the relations between nations. [1970 75] * * * Study of the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies and political… …   Universalium

  • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA — UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, country in N. America. This article is arranged according to the following outline: introduction Colonial Era, 1654–1776 Early National Period, 1776–1820 German Jewish Period, 1820–1880 East European Jewish Period,… …   Encyclopedia of Judaism

  • Israel and the apartheid analogy — The State of Israel s treatment of the Palestinians has been likened by many to a system of apartheid, analogous to South Africa s treatment of non whites during South Africa s apartheid era. [http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=25… …   Wikipedia