Evil, terrorism, torture, and other bad stuff

1. Evil, terrorism, torture, and other bad stuff

2. 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 What is “evil”?

3. “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) Terrorism

4. Moral justification Palliative comparison Euphemistic labeling Displacement and diffusion of responsibility Minimizing, ignoring, or misconstruing the consequences Dehumanization, attribution of blame Examples? “Normal” examples? Bandura, 2004

5. Change perception of conduct Change sense of consequences Change feelings of responsibility Change one’s view of victim Bandura model

6. Anonymity Reduce concerns about self-evaluation Obligation/roles Semantics Propaganda, education Give justification Small steps Diffusion of responsibility Make it hard to leave Zimbardo, 2004

7. How do we use these in the military? Terror alerts What are the implications of the situational view? Is evil seen differently in collectivist countries?

8. Choose normal people with appropriate attitudes Initiation rites In-group language and rules Dehumanize victims Harassment in in-group so can’t think Reward obedience Social modeling Systematic desensitization to acts Carrots and sticks Education against outgroup Gibson & Haritos-Fatouros, 1986

9. Suicide bomber Torturer Terrorist Cult member School shooter How to make a

10. 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 Moghaddam, 2005

11. How does religious fundamentalism have an effect on both sides? Is he only talking about Arabs? “they can’t exit alive” What does he suggest for preventing terrorism?

12. Is there a terrorist type, according to these authors? What was their methodology? Are documents and internet a good way to study these? (advantages/disadvantages) Saucier et al., 2009

13. 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 Themes from saucier et al.

14. 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

15. What do these authors suggest to decrease terrorism? How do terrorism, state-sponsored violence, and genocide differ? Are these also present in more tame politics? Global warming?

16. What is their main point? • Individual level: • Not relative deprivation • Ideology, sense of duty • Quest for personal significance • Group level • Social support, friend/family 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 Kruglanski, Sharvit, & Fishman, 2011

17. Organization-level: • Rational choice given their means • What to do to reduce?

18. What is these authors’ main point? • Are they setting up a straw man? • Words and concepts • Sacred values • Culture of honor • Disgust • What are ours? Ginges, Atran, Sachdeva, & Medin, 2011

19. Causes: • 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

20. Empathy (Bandura) Humanization, stop us/them thinking (Bandura, Moghaddam) Better the lives of those in other countries (Bandura, Zimbardo, Moghaddam) Use only “just war”; Promote justice (Bandura. Moghaddam, Kruglanksi) Better negotiation, talk to other side (Zimbardo, Moghaddam) Reduce collateral damage (Kruglanski) Ways to decrease/prevent evil/terrorism

21. Have young people share (Zimbardo) 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., Gingeset 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)

22. Which of these are practical? Most likely to succeed? Are there other methods not mentioned? Why are these and not those mentioned?

23. Could anyone commit these acts? Are the people responsible for what they did? How can we study these issues? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msTAFlUJl54 How are psychologists involved in torture/terror? Is that okay? General issues