Albert Bandura's Theory of Moral Disconnection

If we think of historical moments such as the Second World War, it is possible that reflection arises on how it is possible that so many soldiers and citizens they had certain behaviors that could be classified as war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as those that were carried out in the concentration camps concentration. The same doubt can arise in contexts such as partner or gender violence, or in less dramatic contexts such as those who commit robbery or fraud. And we do not need to move in areas related to illegality: we can also ask ourselves, for example how is it 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 disconnection, which we will briefly review in this article.

• Related article: "Albert Bandura's Theory of Social Learning"

The theory of moral disengagement: basic principles

Bandura's theory of moral disengagement proposes that during our evolution and development, the behavior is socially reinforced or punished through the application of different procedures, a regulation that with the passage of time we are internalizing through socialization. Little by little, we are acquiring and developing a sense of ethics and morality, regulating our conduct based on the values ​​that are being established in our way of being. Thus, we tend to behave in a coherent way with the rules of behavior that we have internalized, regulating ourselves.

However, sometimes it is possible that people carry out acts contrary to said internalized values ​​and norms (for convenience, conformism or survival among other possible reasons), something that usually causes a dissonance between our doing and our think. This will generate an increase in internal tension and the appearance of subjective discomfort in the face of one's own performance, when a moral conflict appears.

In these cases, and especially when the transgression supposes 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 trying to legitimize their own acts despite going against their moral system, deactivating self-regulation and moral censorship until these elements become irrelevant and justifiable for one's own person.

Said disconnection occurs progressively, in such a way that little by little 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 are profoundly influenced by factors environmental, personal, and behavioral, with morale also affected by the influence of cognition, emotion, and interactions social. Bandura's theory of moral disconnection, as we have seen in the introduction, is applicable in all kinds of situations: from the simplest or most trivial to major war crimes. Obviously, the greater the severity of the split between realized and moral conduct, the greater the difficulty in employing oneself and greater need for the intense application of defensive mechanisms that prevent the destruction of the self and the selfconcept.

• You may be interested in: "Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development"

Four main levels

Moral disengagement theory proposes that such disengagement can occur in different ways. domains or levels, depending on where it is located or the aspect that the mechanisms used work on per se. In this way, we can find four large domains.

1. locus of conduct

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 her actions is his own level of personal responsibility perceived by him, reducing this based on specific mechanisms.

3. outcome locus

The main turning point in the result locus is precisely the results of the action. It's based on reduce the importance and seriousness of the facts and their consequences, or ignore them.

4. Action receptor locus

Here the objective or mechanism to avoid discomfort is to seek an explanation of the behavior from the victim or recipient of immoral acts. Mostly is based on blaming the other or reducing their value as a human being.

defensive mechanisms

Bandura's theory of moral disconnection states that human beings use different mechanisms of cognitive type to justify his behavior when it is against his moral principles and ethical. Specifically, eight large mechanisms are proposed, these being the following.

1. moral justification

Defensive mechanism of moral disconnection in which the conduct 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 laudable 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 and in terrorism. It is typical of the locus of conduct.

2. euphemistic language

Modality of defensive mechanism in which the intensity and severity of immoral conduct is reduced or misrepresented through language, expressing itself in such a way that it loses its harmful character. In other words, put neutral names to immoral actions. It is also part of the locus of conduct.

3. shift of responsibility

A mechanism widely used today, it is about attributing all or a large part of the responsibility for one's 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 to shift responsibility for acts.

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 situate it as a typical mechanism of the locus of action.

• You may be interested in: "Gaslighting: the most subtle emotional abuse"

4. diffusion of responsibility

Similar to the previous mechanism, which in this case instead of being attributed to a single person is assumed to be a slight part of the blame at the same time that it spreads and is diffused by all the members of a group or collective. Thus, individual responsibility is mitigated by sharing the blame among all, or directly disappears. Part of the locus of action, in which the guilt of the facts is interpreted and reassigned.

5. Minimization of consequences

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 for the purposes of the conduct carried out. "It won't be that long." The domain of which this mechanism would be a 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 does not seem so serious. The typical expression "...but I haven't killed anyone" would be a simple example of such a comparison. It is also common to use as an excuse to perform the immoral act the fact that another or others have done something worse to us. Typical of the locus of conduct, by reinterpreting the facts based on said comparison.

7. Dehumanization

Defensive mechanism generally used in the face of guilt in the face of the consequences of one's own actions for other people, these actions generally being very serious. It is based on reducing the humanity of those affected, reducing the consideration towards 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 said treatment. Mistreatment and violations are some of the contexts in which this mechanism, typical of the locus of the recipient of the actions, has been used.

Bibliographic references

• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 (3), 193-209.
• Bandura, A. (2006). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in support of military force. The impact of Sep. 11. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 141-165.
• Rubio, f. (2016). Moral disconnection and violence in dating relationships of adolescents and young people. PhD thesis. UNED.
• Oberman, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 133-144.