Scapegoat movements thrive by offering simpler explanations than complex uncontrollable causes

Evidence

Allport suggested that “the commonest reaction to frustration is … a simple and direct attempt to surmount the obstacle in our path” (1954/ 1979, p. 348), but this first requires identifying the obstacle. In cases of widespread misfortune, the nature of the “obstacle” and how to overcome it is often obscure. In their collective search for plausible explanations and courses of action, people may come to inaccurate, even (to those with better or different information) objectively ridiculous, conclusions that scapegoat an innocent group. Incorrect attributions may occur because information and people’s cognitive abilities to process it are limited, especially when coping with large-scale problems in complex, modern societies. For example, even professional economists may be unable adequately to explain an economic crisis. Complex explanations involving largely uncontrollable, impersonal forces are difficult to fathom and may fail to suggest a clear solution, rendering them unattractive (because they do not fulfill heightened psychological needs for control and optimism). Scapegoat movements attract followers by offering simpler, culturally plausible explanations and solutions for shared negative events. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1592

Categorization

• QUESTION: The claim that complex impersonal explanations are psychologically ‘unattractive’ — is there experimental evidence that framing causes as controllable increases their acceptance?
• XREF: Connects to scapegoat-mechanism literature and to the earlier project framing on how moral panics identify targets.