Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement.

An explanation of how we avoid assuming the consequences of our immoral acts.

If we think of historical moments such as the Second World War, we may reflect on how it is possible that so many soldiers and citizens engaged in certain behaviors that qualify as war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as those carried out in the concentration camps. The same doubt may arise in contexts such as domestic or gender violence, or in less dramatic contexts such as those subjects who commit theft or fraud. And we do not need to move into areas related to illegality: we can also ask ourselves, for example, how it is 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 engage in these and other behaviors because they are against their principles have come to engage in them. One of the theories proposed is Bandura'sBandura's theory of moral disengagementwhich we will briefly review in this article.

The theory of moral disengagement: basic principles

Bandura's theory of moral disengagement proposes that during our evolution and development, behavior is socially reinforced or punished through the application of different procedures, a regulation that over time we internalize through socialization and socialization.. Little by little we acquire and develop a sense of ethics and morality, regulating our behavior based on the values that are established in our way of being. Thus, we tend to behave in a way that is consistent with the behavioral norms we have internalized, regulating ourselves.

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

In these cases, and especially when the transgression implies a strong rupture with our beliefs and values, what Bandura calls selective moral disconnection is common.The person uses different defensive mechanisms that allow him/her to try to legitimize his/her own acts in spite of going against his/her moral system, deactivating self-regulation and moral censure until these elements become irrelevant and justifiable for the person him/herself.

This disconnection occurs progressively, in such a way that little by little more and more behaviors are more and more behaviors that at first would be considered unacceptable, absurd, cruel or even criminal. or even criminal. 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 is profoundly influenced by environmental, personal and behavioral factors, and that morality is also affected by the influence of cognition, emotion and social interactions. Bandura's theory of moral disconnection, as we have seen in the introduction, is applicable in all types of situations: from the simplest or most insignificant to major war crimes. 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 using it and the greater the need for the intense application of defensive mechanisms to prevent the destruction of the self and the self-concept.

Four main levels

The theory of moral disengagement proposes that such disengagement can occur in different domains or levels, depending on where it is located or the aspect that the mechanisms employed themselves work. Thus, we can find four major domains.

1. Behavioral locus

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 his acts is his own level of personal responsibility as perceived by himreducing it on the basis of concrete mechanisms.

3. Locus of outcome

The main turning point in the outcome locus is precisely the results of the action. It is based on reducing the importance and seriousness of the events and their consequences, or ignoring them..

4. Locus of the receiver of the actions

Here the objective or mechanism to avoid discomfort is to seek an explanation of the behavior based on the victim or receiver of the immoral acts. Mainly is based on blaming the other person or reducing his or her value as a human being.

Defensive mechanisms

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

Moral justification

Defensive mechanism of moral disconnection in which the behavior performed and contrary to the subject's values and beliefs 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 praiseworthy in the eyes of its perpetrator.. It is one of the mechanisms that would be placed in the domain of the locus of conduct, and its presence is common in the military and in terrorism. It is characteristic of the behavioral locus.

2. Euphemistic language

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

3. Displacement of responsibility

A mechanism widely used today, it involves attributing all or a large part of the responsibility for one's own actions to other people or situations.. On many occasions this 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 the responsibility for one's actions.

It is typically used in the workplace, but also in other more dramatic situations. A phrase that would summarize part of this concept is "just following orders". It is based on attributing blame to others, something that would place it as a typical mechanism of the locus of action.

4. Diffusion of responsibility

Similar to the previous mechanism, but in this case, instead of being attributed to a single person, a slight part of the blame is assumed and at the same time it is spread and diffused among all the members of a group or collective. In this way, individual liability is attenuated by spreading the blame among all the members of a group or collective, or it disappears altogether.or disappears altogether. Part of the locus of action, in which the culpability 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 implies distorting or considering false or exaggerated the effects of the conduct carried out. "It won't be that big a deal". The domain of which this mechanism would form part is the outcome locus.

6. Advantageous comparison

Mainly, this defensive mechanism involves making comparisons between one's own behavior and another considered to be much worse, in such a way that by comparison, the former does not seem so serious. The typical expression "...but I have not 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. This is typical of the locus of behavior, when reinterpreting the facts based on such a comparison.

7. Dehumanization

Defensive mechanism generally used in the face of the guilt of the consequences of one's own actions for other people, these actions being generally of great gravity. It is based on reducing the humanity of those affected, reducing consideration for them as beings and downplaying the importance of their lives. This produces a decrease in the level of empathy for them, facilitating the reduction or even elimination of the feeling of discomfort associated with the damage caused. This reduces or even eliminates the sense of discomfort associated with the damage caused. Many acts of war and crimes are justified by this means, the mechanism employed being based on the locus of the recipient of the actions.

8. Attribution of guilt

Similar to displacement of responsibility and dehumanization, it is based on making the victim primarily responsible for the subject having committed the amoral act. "I would go looking for it / I was provoking it" is a typical phrase that sums up this mechanism. The behavior itself is seen as a normal reaction, derived from or attenuated by the situation and the consideration that the other deserved it. the consideration that the other deserved such treatment.. Malos tratos y violaciones son algunos de los contextos en los que ha sido utilizada este mecanismo, propio del locus del receptor de las acciones.

Referencias bibliográficas

• 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). Desconexión moral y violencia en las reclaciones de noviazgo de adolescentes y jóvenes. Tesis doctoral. UNED.
• Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 133-144.