You are likely reading this article within the social distancing that has been decreed in most countries. It is even more likely that people who disregarded the preventive measures taken by their country’s government to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have appeared on the news. This type of maladaptive actions and beliefs, which go against moral norms, has been studied in various investigations over time within the field of Psychology.
The Canadian psychologist Albert Bandura proposed, within the framework of social cognitive theory (SCT), the concept of “moral disconnection”, a way of understanding why a person who behaves in a kind and pious manner can commit inhuman acts. or why people transgress the moral norms established in society.
He points out a number of mechanisms we use to selectively disengage morally that I will expand on later.
What is moral disconnection?
Moral disengagement can be defined as a set of sociocognitive mechanisms that allow the person to justify harmful acts to others in order to avoid damaging their self-image (Bandura, 1986, 1990; De Caroli & Sagone, 2014; Detert, Treviño & Sweitzer, 2008); These acts end up impacting not only the harmed person but also the people around them, who have a less leading role but who have a certain influence, as if they were spectators watching a soccer game (See Figure 1).
The way we understand morality, according to the theories of moral agency and social cognitive, is articulated from the knowledge and reasoning of moral behavior. The interactionist perspective of social cognitive theory considers that moral behavior is the result of the reciprocal linking of cognitive, social and affective influences (Bandura, 2002; Azzi, 2011). Both our way of thinking and acting morally are related through affective and individual self-regulation (Azzi, 2011; Bandura, 1986, 1991). Such self-regulation allows self-censorship in case of immoral acts, but self-regulation of morality is not invariable. Our moral norms do not adjust as static and inflexible regulators in all cases; they must also be activated voluntarily and selectively (Azzi, 2011; Bandura, 1990).
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
According to research, we self-regulate our moral control selectively (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara & Pastorelli; 1996) but, when it is not activated, we can commit acts that violate our moral standards, because there was precisely no regulation. internal authority that censures or stops the performance of said act. (Ortega, Sánchez & Menesini, 2002; Detert, Treviño & Sweitzer, 2008).
The self-regulation mechanism by which our moral action is exercised has an important relevance in the self-management of transgressive behavior (Bandura, 1990, 2002 cited in Azzi, 2011). Furthermore, this mechanism has two aspects: an inhibitory one and a proactive one regarding our behavior (Bandura, 1999). The inhibitory form manifests itself in the ability to stop antisocial actions, on the contrary, a proactive form of morality is present in the ability to act humanely (Bandura, 2002).
“Moral behavior is motivated and regulated mainly by the continuous exercise of reactive influence, but the mechanisms that regulate them do not work unless they are activated and there are different psychological mechanisms by which our moral control can be selectively activated or disconnected by carrying out a behavior. inhuman” (Bandura, 1990, p.27)
The level of moral control will be subject to our own ability to keep the mechanisms that allow reprehensible behavior to be censored. Bandura, together with his research group in 1996, wrote: “What was once morally censored becomes a source of positive self-esteem.”
Figure 1. Mechanisms of Moral Disconnection proposed by Bandura (1986).
Mechanisms of moral disconnection
The mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura et al., 1996) constitute eight processes of cognitive restructuring of reprehensible behavior, facilitating the disinhibition of moral reasoning. As Rubio-Garay (2015) points out, these mechanisms have been grouped into four domains depending on where they exert their influence.
From these four domains (locus) the eight mechanisms of moral disconnection are deployed:
- In the locus of conduct are located: moral justification, euphemistic labeling and advantageous comparison;
- At the locus of action are: the displacement of responsibility and the diffusion of responsibility;
- Within the locus of result is the distortion of the consequences and finally,
- Within the locus of the recipient of the actions are the attribution of blame and dehumanization.
Moral justification
People can act on a moral imperative and preserve their view of themselves as moral agents while inflicting harm on others. Over the centuries, much destructive behavior has been perpetrated by ordinary, decent people in the name of just ideologies, religious principles, and nationalist imperatives (Rapoport and Alexander, 1982; Kramer, 1990; Reich, 1990 cited in Bandura, 2002).
A classic example to understand how this mechanism works is what happens in the Middle East, where jihadists attack the Israelites justifying their behavior because it is the law or command of God.
Euphemistic labeling
Language shapes our thought patterns on which the actions we take are based. Euphemistic language is the way we use words to describe an inhumane action so that it is perceived as more acceptable or less reprehensible. Euphemistic labeling refers to the change of words that can generate a much greater impact on the person who reads or listens to it for other less serious words.
Research has been carried out explaining that our actions can be understood in a less reprehensible way depending on what they are called, in turn, there are studies that support the fact that people behave more aggressively when a euphemism is used (Bandura et al., 1996; Bandura, 2002).
It is common, for example, within military language for civilians who die in the midst of an armed conflict to be called “collateral damage” to evade responsibility for their actions and reduce the severity of the consequences (Bandura, 1999).
Advantageous comparison
When we compare a harmful behavior with a more harmful one, we tend to see the harmful behavior as less harmful and even give it fewer consequences than it causes; This mechanism was called advantageous comparison. Bandura and his collaborators (1996) rightly said that the more flagrant the contrasted activities are, the more likely it is that the harmful behavior itself will appear insignificant or even benevolent.
An example of an advantageous comparison could be when a child shows his report card where he has four failed courses but, because there is another classmate who failed more than seven courses, there is no reason to worry. Situations like this have been reviewed in research on moral disengagement in children and adolescents (De Caroli & Sagone, 2014; Hymel & Bonano; 2014).
Displacement of responsibility
You have surely read or seen the atrocities committed in the concentration camps by Nazi soldiers; Well, when their regime fell and they were questioned, they responded that they were only following orders from their superiors or that they did nothing.
This way of avoiding responsibility for their actions is known as shifting responsibility. There are even studies that holding others responsible for our harmful actions reduces guilt or emotional discomfort resulting from aggression (Rubio-Garay, 2015).
Spread of responsibility
Bandura (2002) mentions that our moral control decreases when immoral actions occur within anonymity. For a better understanding, imagine a classroom where an object is lost and no one wants to tell on who did it because “where everyone is responsible, no one is really fully responsible.”
Distortion of consequences
When one makes use of this mechanism, one tries to shape the consequences of immoral acts according to one’s taste to minimize or soften them. Through the distortion of consequences, one is able to misrepresent the effects produced by the harmful behavior, attempting to minimize the consequences caused and even more so, attempting to discredit any evidence of the harm in question (Bandura et al., 1996; Bandura, 2002).
A simple example of this mechanism would be that of a group of older men (60 years and older) who go out to drink alcoholic beverages in the middle of quarantine.
Attribution of blame
Blame attribution is shifting the blame for the harmful effect to others or the situation, claiming that it is the victim who forced or provoked the aggressive behavior. (Rubio-Garay, 2015). This mechanism is evident when the person victimizes themselves and thinks that their (harmful) behavior is a response or defense to the other’s provocation (De Caroli & Sagone, 2014).
An example occurs when a woman is sexually abused, and is blamed for dressing in a certain way, being nice, being on the street at a certain time, or being alone.
Dehumanization
According to Bandura (1996), dehumanization disappears the psychological discomfort that is felt as a result of the damage caused and opens a door to continue committing more and greater cruelties. Bandura (2002) himself mentions that “when dehumanization is combined with the diffusion of responsibility for the acts committed, the punitive power of people is greatly increased (cited in Rubio-Garay, 2015).
If you want to read more about the topic, I recommend:
Characterization of the mechanisms of moral disconnection in schoolchildren who attend a public Educational Institution in the Department of Sucre, Colombia. This article was published in 2018, in the magazine of the Institute of Education Studies of the Universidad del Norte, “Zona Próxima”, it consists of eight pages and was prepared by the authors: Canchila Arrieta, E.; Hoyos de los Ríos, O. and Valega Mackensie, S. To access its PDF version, go here:
Moral Disengagement and Student Misbehavior in Physical Education (Moral Disconnection and Bad Behavior in Physical Education Students). It was published in 2019 in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, with an extension of eight pages. It was written by: Wei-Ting, Hsu and Yi-Hsiang, Pan. To access its PDF version, go here: https://www.jssm.org/volume17/iss3/cap/jssm-17-437.pdf
Research on the Issue of Moral Disengagement in Enterprise Operation (Research on the topic of Moral Disconnection in the…