Moral disengagement mechanisms enable justification of in-group harm.
Evidence
Bandura (1999) systematically analyzed the multiple ways in which such mechanisms can lead to justification of wrongdoings. People can dispute the accuracy of the reports of harm done to the out-group, displace the responsibility for the harm done and attribute the offending behaviors to extenuating external circumstances rather than volition, or even interpret the event in a manner that assigns ultimate blame to the victims themselves (see Herbert & Dunkel-Schetter, 1992, for an example of the latter mechanism). All these mechanisms enable moral disengagement and have been related to support for military intervention against an enemy (Grussendorf, McAlister, Sandstrom, Udd, & Morrison, 2002; McAlister, 2001). — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 47
Categorization
- DEFINE: Crisply catalogs the moral disengagement repertoire (denial of harm, responsibility displacement, victim-blame) as background to the study’s exonerating-cognitions measure.
- XREF: Moral disengagement also links to support for military intervention, which resonates with glorification predicting hawkishness and defense of national violence. — connects to: Conflict both demands belief in in-group morality and creates urgent need to question it — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 5; Moral disengagement can make harm exilarating and not always sustainable; In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115 (+17 more)
Related
- Perceived in-group moral violations trigger defensive cognitive distortions. (similarity 0.90)
- Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. (similarity 0.89)
- Moral disengagement from in-group wrongdoing can be countered through awareness-raising communications. (similarity 0.89)
- Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. (similarity 0.89)
- Moral disengagement mediates glorification’s suppression of justice demands (similarity 0.88)
- Divine legitimization of group advantage removes accountability for causing harm. (similarity 0.88)
- Glorifying one’s own group drives dehumanization of victims and lowered justice demands. (similarity 0.86)
- Group glorification suppresses demands for justice for ingroup violence (similarity 0.84)
- Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.83)
- In-group perpetrated misdeeds ironically heighten victim dehumanization (similarity 0.83)
- Conflict both demands belief in in-group morality and creates urgent need to question it (similarity 0.83)
- Moral disengagement strategies only mediate glorification’s effect for ingroup-perpetrated violence (similarity 0.82)
- In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups (similarity 0.82)
- Compassion directed through collectives secretly threatens those it claims to help (similarity 0.82)
- Atonement must let perpetrator groups retain a positive moral identity (similarity 0.82)
Broader Connections
- Diffusion of responsibility, distortion of harm, and dehumanization each neutralize moral restraint
#expands(0.90) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 62 - In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups
#corroborates(0.85) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115 - Group moral disengagement exceeds the sum of individual members’ mind-sets
#expands(0.85) - Group-level moral disengagement is an emergent property, not a sum of individual exonerations
#expands(0.85) - Collective moral disengagement arises from members mutually exonerating each role in a shared system
#expands(0.85) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 685 - Moral disengagement can make harm exilarating and not always sustainable
#qualifies(0.80) - Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification.
#corroborates(0.80) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 138 - Heavier moral burden predicts heavier reliance on disengagement mechanisms
#corroborates(0.80) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2057 - Threat to in-group moral image triggers defensive reinterpretation of atrocity reports.
#expands(0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2136 - In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt
#corroborates(0.80) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49 - Shared identity with the perpetrator is the critical precondition for moral disengagement
#qualifies(0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2112 - Perceived in-group moral violations trigger defensive cognitive distortions.
#complicates(0.75) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 46 - Witnessing in-group wrongdoing shifts accessible moral foundations toward loyalty and authority.
#expands(0.75)