If we think about historical moments such as the Second World War, it is possible that reflection arises about how it is possible that so many soldiers and citizens had certain behaviors that could be classified as war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as those carried out in the concentration camps. . The same doubt can arise in contexts such as intimate partner or gender violence, or in less dramatic contexts such as those who commit theft or fraud. And we do not need to move into areas related to illegality: we can also ask ourselves, for example, how it is possible that people who value fidelity above all things can become unfaithful.
There are many attempts to explain how people who generally would not or should not carry out these and other behaviors because they are against their principles have come to carry them out. One of the proposed theories isBandura’s theory of moral disengagement which we will briefly review in this article.
The theory of moral disengagement: basic principles
Bandura’s theory of moral disconnection proposes that during our evolution and development, behavior is socially reinforced or punished through the application of different procedures, a regulation that over time we internalize through socialization. Little by little we are acquiring and developing a sense of ethics and morality, regulating our behavior based on the values that are established in our way of being. Thus, we tend to behave in a manner consistent with the behavioral norms that we have internalized, self-regulating.
However, sometimes it is possible that people carry out acts contrary to said values and internalized norms (for convenience, conformism or survival among other possible reasons), something that generally causes a dissonance between our actions and our actions. think. This will generate an increase in internal tension and appearance of subjective discomfort regarding one’s own performance, when a moral conflict appears.
In these cases, and especially when the transgression represents a strong break with our beliefs and values, It is common for what Bandura calls selective moral disconnection to occur using different defensive mechanisms that allow one to try to legitimize one’s own acts despite going against one’s moral system, deactivating self-regulation and moral censorship until these elements become something irrelevant and justifiable for the person themselves.
This disconnection occurs progressively, in such a way that little by little they go away accepting more and more behaviors that at first would be considered unacceptable, absurd, cruel or even criminals. Thus, the self-concept is protected and the usual self-regulation process does not appear as different defensive mechanisms are applied.
This theory is based on the conception that the interaction between behavior and thought is deeply influenced by environmental, personal and behavioral factors, with morality also being affected by the influence of cognition, emotion and social interactions. Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement, as we have seen in the introduction, is applicable in all types of situations: from the simplest or most trivial to major war crimes. Obviously, the greater the severity of the split between realized and moral behavior, the greater the difficulty in using it and the greater the need for the intense application of defensive mechanisms that prevent the destruction of the ego and self-concept.
Four main levels
The theory of moral disconnection proposes that said disconnection can occur in different domains or levels, depending on where it is located or the aspect in which the mechanisms used themselves work. In this way, we can find four major domains.
1. Locus of behavior
This domain refers to the set of processes in which the element on which the modification is carried out is the behavior in question. The acts are reinterpreted through different mechanisms, reducing their severity.
2. Locus of action
In this case, the point at which the subject introduces modifications in order to reduce the cognitive distortion generated by his actions is his own level of personal responsibility perceived by him reducing this based on specific mechanisms.
3. Locus of outcome
The main turning point in the locus of result is, precisely, the results of the action. It’s based on reduce the importance and seriousness of the events and their consequences, or ignore them.
Here the objective or mechanism to avoid discomfort is to seek an explanation of the behavior from the victim or recipient of the immoral acts. Mostly It is based on blaming others or reducing their value as a human being.
Defensive mechanisms
Bandura’s theory of moral disconnection states that human beings use different cognitive mechanisms to justify their behavior when it goes against their moral and ethical principles. Specifically, eight major mechanisms are proposed, these being the following.
1. Moral justification
Defensive mechanism of moral disconnection in which the behavior carried out and contrary to the values and beliefs of the subject is defended as a means used to achieve a worthy and superior purpose, which justifies the acts committed. Reality is reinterpreted in a positive way in such a way that the immoral act actually becomes praiseworthy in the eyes of its perpetrator. It is one of the mechanisms that would be located in the domain of the locus of conduct, and its presence is common in the military field and in terrorism. It is typical of the locus of behavior.
2. Euphemistic language
Type of defensive mechanism in which the intensity and severity of immoral behavior is reduced or distorted through language , expressing itself in such a way that it loses its harmful character. In other words, giving neutral names to immoral actions. It is also part of the locus of behavior.
3. Displacement of responsibility
A mechanism widely used today, It is about attributing all or a large part of the responsibility for one’s own actions to other people or situations. On many occasions said person has a certain position of superiority with respect to the subject. Chance, time and place or another subject can serve as an element to which responsibility for actions can be displaced.
It is typically used in the workplace, but also in other more dramatic situations. A phrase that would summarize part of this concept is “I was just following orders.” It is based on attributing blame to others, something that would place it as a typical locus of action mechanism.
4. Diffusion of responsibility
Similar to the previous mechanism, in this case, instead of being attributed to a single person, a slight part of the blame is assumed at the same time that it is extended and diffused by all the members of a group or collective. Thus, individual responsibility is attenuated by sharing the blame among everyone , or it directly disappears. Part of the locus of action, in which the guilt of the events is interpreted and reassigned.
Defensive mechanism focused on considering that the consequences of amoral actions are less serious than they really are. This means distorting or considering false or exaggerated the effects of the conduct carried out. “It won’t be that bad.” The domain of which this mechanism would be part is the outcome locus.
6. Advantageous comparison
Mainly, this defensive mechanism involves making comparisons between one’s own behavior and another considered much worse, in such a way that By comparison the first one doesn’t seem so serious. The typical expression “…but I haven’t killed anyone” would be a simple example of this comparison. It is also common to use the fact that another person or others have done something worse to us as an excuse to carry out the immoral act. Typical of the locus of behavior, when reinterpreting the facts based on said comparison.
7. Dehumanization
Defensive mechanism generally used in response to guilt about the consequences of one’s actions for other people, these actions generally being very serious. It is based on subtracting humanity from those affected, reducing consideration for them as beings and downplaying their lives. This produces a decrease in the level of empathy towards them, facilitating the reduction or even eliminating the feeling of discomfort associated with the damage caused. Many acts of war and crimes are justified by this means, the mechanism used being based on the locus of the recipient of the actions.
8. Attribution of guilt
Similar to the displacement of responsibility and dehumanization, it is based on making the victim the main person responsible for the subject having committed the amoral act. “I would go looking for it/I was provoking it” is a typical phrase that summarizes this mechanism. The behavior itself is seen as a normal reaction, derived or attenuated by the situation and the consideration that the other deserved such treatment. Abuse and violations are some of the contexts in which this mechanism, typical of the locus of the recipient of the actions, has been used.
