EVIL, TERRORISM, TORTURE, AND OTHER BAD STUFF

WHAT IS “EVIL”? Bandura: moral disengagement Zimbardo: intentionally behaving or causing

others to act in ways that demean, dehumanize, harm, destroy, or kill innocent people

Staub: intensely harmful actions, which are not commensurate with instigating conditions and the persistence or repetition of such acts

Baumeister: threatened egotism Buss: causing reproductive harm to other and

especially to those close to us

TERRORISM “Politically motivated violence perpetrated by

individuals, groups, or state sponsored agents (?) intended to instill feelings of terror and helplessness in a population to influence decision making and change behavior” (Moghaddam, 2005)

To get political objectives, threatened or real violence (Saucier et al., 2009)

“Indiscriminate use of force”, political agenda, spreading fear (Kruglanski et al., 2011)

BACKGROUND How are terrorists different from normal

people? What do people generally believe

causes terrorism? How do people think terrorists are

made? What do countries and people seem to

think will help?

WHAT DOES SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY HAVE TO SAY?

Bandura—Lacey, Brendan Zimbardo—Olivia, Lily Gibson & Haritos-Faturos—Tory Moghaddam—Lee Saucier et al.—Jenna Kruglanski et al.—Manny Ginges et al.—Salomi What causes terrorism? What encourages it? How can it be reduced/halted?

BANDURA, 2004 Moral justification Palliative comparison Euphemistic labeling Displacement and diffusion of

responsibility Minimizing, ignoring, or misconstruing

the consequences Dehumanization, attribution of blame

ZIMBARDO, 2004 Anonymity Reduced concerns about self-evaluation Obligation/roles Semantics Propaganda, education Provided justifications Small steps Diffusion of responsibility Exit difficult

GIBSON & HARITOS-FATOUROS, 1986 Normal people with appropriate attitudes Initiation rites, new social order, rules In-group language and rules, feel “special” Dehumanize victims Harassment in in-group so can’t think Reward obedience Social modeling Systematic desensitization to acts (small steps) Carrots and sticks Education against outgroup

MOGHADDAM, 2005 What causes terrorism, according to M? Floor 1: perceptions of fairness, procedural

justice Contextualized democracy (Arab spring)

Floor 2: displacement of aggression Floor 3: moral disengagement Floor 4: categorical thinking, legitimacy of

org* Floor 5: distance from outgroup, act

THEMES FROM SAUCIER ET AL., 2009 Necessity of extreme measures Absolve responsibility Use of military terminology Perception that group is being held back Glorifying the past of one’s group Utopianizing Catastrophizing Supernatural assumptions

Feel need to purify world from evil Glorification of dying for the cause Duty to kill Use of immoral acts okay to get to goals Seeing intolerance, vengeance, and war as

good Dehumanization Modern world = bad Civil government as illegitimate

KRUGLANSKI, SHARVIT, & FISHMAN, 2011 Individual level:

Not relative deprivation Quest for personal significance

Trauma Ideology, sense of duty Deviance justification

Group level Social support, friend/family networks, online

networks Shared reality/less contact with outsiders Language for own and other groups Public commitment Authority that they listen to and not think on

their own Organization-level:

Rational choice given their means

GINGES, ATRAN, SACHDEVA, & MEDIN, 2011

Sacred values Not education, poverty Friendship and family networks Perceived foreign meddling Sense of national humiliation Frustrated expectations Social marginalization Commitment to ingroup and values Group cohesion, peer support “Logical” when thinking about diplomacy, not violence

WAYS TO DECREASE/PREVENT EVIL/TERRORISM

Create empathy (Bandura) Encourage humanization, stop us/them

thinking (Bandura, Moghaddam) Better the lives of those in other countries

(Bandura, Zimbardo, Moghaddam) Use only “just war”; Promote justice and

peace (Bandura. Zimbardo, Moghaddam, Kruglanksi)

Do better negotiation, talk to other side (Zimbardo, Moghaddam)

Reduce collateral damage (Kruglanski)

Have young people share (Zimbardo) Encourage contextualized democracy

(get women involved; Moghaddam) Encourage opposite thinking (Saucier et

al.) Show people that crisis isn’t so bad,

mission not sacred, violations of values exaggerated (Saucier et al., Ginges et al.)

Have outgroup make symbolic concessions to ingroup’s sacred values (Ginges et al.)

Challenge the idea that violence is morally mandated (Ginges et al.)

Challenge the idea that terrorism is effective (Kruglanski)

Kill their leaders (Kruglanski)

“FIXES” Which of these are most practical?

Most likely to succeed? Are there other methods not

mentioned? Why are these and not those mentioned?

GENERAL ISSUES Could anyone commit an “evil” act? Are the people responsible for what

they did? Do these processes occur with more

mundane politics? How do governments use these

techniques for their own purposes?

What should France’s response be? How could they have prevented the response?

Why are people talking about Paris and not Beirut?

Why does religion seem to often be involved?

Could social psychology’s liberal bias affect research and thought on this topic?

Why do we feel it’s all about us and now?

Are these causes and methods valid cross-culturally?

How can terrorism be studied?

HOW TO MAKE A Suicide bomber Torturer Terrorist Cult member School shooter