Bandura on Selective Moral Disengagement

How we cope with, and rationalise inflicting physical and emotional pain and discomfort on others

I deliver lectures on ethics to business, social science and psychology students at undergrad and post-grad levels. It is a topic that perhaps I did not afford too much time when I was studying myself, but since I was introduced to the work of people like Erich Fromm, the Freudian psychoanalyst, and Albert Bandura, Ethics began to take hold of my interest, and I realised the fundamental place of moral and ethical values in all human affairs. Our ethical position and our view of the rights and dignity of others is the basis of our relationships in business, politics, the workplace, sport, broader society and personal relationships. Without a sound moral and ethical position, we may be prone to act in reprehensible ways, and we don’t have to be bad bastards by nature to do so. However, recent events in Ukraine, Syria, Israel and the Gaza Strip might make us believe that some people are simply evil to the core.

Today in Sunday Letters, I’m discussing the phenomenon of Selective Moral Disengagement. It is a psychological process that allows human beings to act in morally reprehensible ways and then justify those unethical behaviours or actions without feeling guilt or moral responsibility for those who have suffered at our hands. Think of any war you’d care to or any harm that we human beings inflict on others for which we later then find justification and you will observe Selective Moral Disengagement at work. This process is always necessary where we find the needs of one ethnic group not only subjugated but oppressed by another often more powerful group. The phenomenon has been widely studied in the field of psychology, for example, in sport¹, business², and most notably perhaps, more generally by Albert Bandura in 2002³.

Bandura dedicated his career to understanding the complexities of human behaviour. One of his most significant contributions is his research on moral disengagement which sheds light on the cognitive processes we employ to protect our self-image and justify our actions. These studies point to the intricate mechanisms by which people manipulate their moral compass and disregard the humanity of others in pursuit of personal or group advancement or survival. It is a feature, for example, of Colonialism in all its guises across all human history.

Bandura's influential Social Cognitive Theory⁴ proposes that moral disengagement is not a result of inherent immorality, but rather a cognitive process that allows us to distance ourselves from the ethical implications of our behaviour. Bandura provides compelling evidence of how we morally disengage by convincing ourselves that our behaviour is reasonable or necessary. It is particularly prevalent in situations where we feel threatened, pressured, or face conflicting moral values. Bandura's research has shown that people often resort to various cognitive mechanisms to rationalise their actions and alleviate feelings of guilt or shame.

“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”― William James

What is Selective Moral Disengagement?

At its core, Selective Moral Disengagement involves the activation of cognitive processes that detach our moral standards (if indeed we have any to begin with) from our behaviour. It is a way for us to distance ourselves from the potential or actual negative consequences of our actions while maintaining a positive self-image. Take for example the worn-out business adage, “It’s nothing personal, it’s just business”. If we are not otherwise psychopathic by nature, we may behave in a psychopathic manner by removing ourselves from the responsibility of our actions. Personality psychologist Robert Hogan⁵, suggests that aspects of dark trait personality (of which psychopathy is one) and their associated outcomes can come to the fore where conditions force us to act as we might not otherwise. There are parallels here with Selective Moral Disengagement, so let’s take a look at some of these conditions.

Social Norms

One factor that influences Selective Moral Disengagement is the presence of social norms that condone or even encourage unethical behaviour. For example, in a business setting, if an organisation's culture promotes a win-at-all-costs mentality, employees may feel justified in engaging in dishonest practices to achieve their goals. It is the power of the group or crowd to influence. If this is how it’s done, then this must be ok, even though I might be less inclined to do this if I was left to my own cognitive devices.

Moral Justification

Another factor that contributes to Selective Moral Disengagement is moral justification. Here we reinterpret our actions in a way that aligns with our moral standards. We may convince ourselves, for example, that our behaviour is necessary to achieve a greater good or that it is justified because others have engaged in similar actions. By rationalising our behaviour in this way, we can alleviate the cognitive dissonance that arises from acting against our moral principles. And of course, this begs the question, what is the greater good, and who gets to decide?

Diffusion of Responsibility

Diffusion of responsibility can also play a role. When we are part of a group or organisation, we may feel less personally responsible for our actions. “I was just doing my job, I was doing what I was told,” for example. This is an inherent problem with hierarchal systems in the workplace. When we insist that people work only from the neck down, we remove their capacity to think and to create. They become automatons and simply row in with whatever is the culture of the group. Individuality is foregone, and one mind amongst the collective is operational.

This diffusion of responsibility can lead to a weakening of our moral compass, as we believe our actions are justifiable because we are acting in coherence with the larger entity. This mindset can be particularly prevalent in corporate settings, where decisions are often made collectively, and individuals may feel less accountable for the consequences of their actions.

It is important to note that Selective Moral Disengagement is not limited to work, sport, or broader society but can occur in interpersonal relationships. We may engage in behaviours that violate our moral principles, such as lying or cheating, while still maintaining a positive self-image. This disconnection between our moral standards and respect for others we love, and our behaviour can strain relationships that eventually erode trust and lead to relationship breakdown.

Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement

Bandura identified several mechanisms that enable us and the groups to which we belong to selectively disengage our moral standards, if, indeed, we had them to begin with.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” — Voltaire

Moral Justification

This mechanism involves individuals justifying their unethical actions by linking them to a higher moral cause or purpose. By framing their actions as serving a greater good, individuals can convince themselves that their behaviour is morally acceptable.

For example, individuals who engage in illegal activities, such as hacking into computer systems, may justify their actions by arguing that they are exposing vulnerabilities to improve cybersecurity for the greater good of society. This moral justification allows them to distance themselves from the unethical nature of their behaviour.

Euphemistic Language

Euphemistic labelling refers to the use of language or labels that downplay the negative nature of an action. By employing less harsh or neutral terms, individuals can mitigate the moral implications of their behaviour. Bandura says that language shapes thought patterns on which actions are based and activities take on different appearances depending on what they are called. Euphemistic language is used widely to make harmful conduct respectable and to reduce personal responsibility for it. As such, euphemising is an injurious weapon. People behave much more cruelly when assaultive actions are sanitised than when they are called aggression.

Consider the case of a company that engages in unethical business practices, such as exploiting workers in sweatshops. Instead of acknowledging the harsh reality of their actions, they may use euphemistic labels such as "cost-effective labour solutions" or "global sourcing strategies." By using these terms, they attempt to soften the negative perception of their behaviour and avoid moral responsibility.

Advantageous Comparison

Through advantageous comparison, individuals compare their actions to more extreme or unethical behaviours, making their transgressions seem relatively minor and justifiable. How behaviour is viewed is coloured by what it is compared against. By exploiting the contrast principle reprehensible acts can be made righteous. Terrorists see their behaviour as acts of selfless martyrdom by comparing them with widespread cruelties inflicted on the people with whom they identify. The more fragrant the contrasting inhumanities, the more likely it is that one’s own destructive conduct will appear benevolent.

Bandura provides the example of the massive destruction in Vietnam that was minimised by portraying the American military intervention as saving the populace from Communist enslavement. The expedient historical comparison also serves self-exonerating purposes. He suggests that those who adopt violent means are quick to point out that democracies, such as those of France and the United States, were achieved through violence against oppressive rule, while those democratic states become the oppressors themselves.

Displacement of Responsibility

This mechanism involves shifting responsibility onto others or external factors, absolving oneself from personal accountability for unethical conduct. Bandura suggests that moral control operates most strongly when people acknowledge that they are contributors to harmful outcomes. Displacement of responsibility operates by obscuring or minimising the agentive role in the harm one causes. People will behave in ways they normally repudiate if a legitimate authority accepts responsibility for the effects of their conduct

Imagine a scenario where an employee is caught embezzling funds from their company. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they may blame their superiors for creating a toxic work environment that pushed them towards unethical behaviour. By displacing the responsibility onto others, they avoid facing the consequences of their actions.

Diffusion of Responsibility

Similar to displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility occurs when individuals believe their unethical actions are a result of collective decision-making or a group mentality, displacing personal responsibility. The exercise of moral control is also weakened, Bandura says, when personal agency is obscured by diffusing responsibility for detrimental behaviour. Responsibility can be diffused by the division of labour in the workplace. Subdivided tasks seem harmless in themselves, but the collective impact is dramatic. Division of labour encourages people to shift their attention from the meaning of what they are doing to the details of their specific job.

For example, in a corrupt organisation, employees may engage in fraudulent practices, such as bribery, believing that everyone else is doing it too. This diffusion of responsibility allows individuals to justify their actions by attributing them to the collective decision-making within the organization, rather than taking personal accountability.

Minimising Consequence

To perpetrate inhumanities requires more than absolving oneself of personal responsibility. Other ways of weakening moral control operate by minimising, disregarding or distorting the effects of our actions. When people pursue activities that harm others, they avoid facing the harm they cause or minimise it. If minimisation doesn’t work, Bandura says, then the evidence of harm can be discredited. As long as the harmful results of one’s conduct are ignored, minimised, distorted or disbelieved there is little reason for self-censure.

A Pulitzer Prize was awarded for a powerful photograph that captured the anguished cries of a little girl whose clothes were burned off by the napalm bombing of her village in Vietnam. This single humanisation of inflicted destruction probably did more to turn the American public against the war in Vietnam than the countless reports by journalists of the time. The US military now bans cameras and journalists from battlefield areas to block disturbing images from reaching and influencing the public.

“Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.” ― C.S. Lewis

Uncovering the Factors that Influence Selective Moral Disengagement

Research has shown that various factors can contribute to selective moral disengagement. It is essential to understand these factors to develop strategies for mitigating unethical behaviour. Some key factors that influence selective moral disengagement include:

Social Norms: Prevailing social norms and culture in organisations and broader society play a significant role in shaping our moral standards and their ability to disengage morally.

Group Dynamics: When we are part of a group, group dynamics can influence their willingness to disengage morally. It occurs through peer pressure, the need to conform, or a diffusion of responsibility within the group. The unwritten rules of the group become paramount, nobody stands up and says stop.

Personal Justification: We may have personal reasons or justifications that lead us to disengage morally. These reasons could be driven by an aspect of personality such as psychopathy or narcissism and an absence of empathy, self-interest, a desire for financial gain, self-righteousness or entitlement.

Emotional Factors: Emotional states, such as anger, frustration, or fear, can also contribute to the propensity for moral disengagement. These emotions can cloud judgment and make us more susceptible to justifying unethical actions.

Lack of Consequences: When we perceive a lack of consequences or punishment for our actions, we may be more inclined to disengage morally, believing we can act with impunity. Research shows that when nobody is watching, we are more likely to act out of our own self-interest.

How We Can Mitigate Against Selective Moral Disengagement

Research into selective moral disengagement has also shed light on potential strategies for mitigating unethical behaviour. While no single solution can guarantee the prevention of unethical behaviour, an awareness of this human flaw may help prevent unfavourable outcomes.

Promote Ethical Leadership: Ethical leaders play a crucial role in setting the moral tone in organizations, communities, or society. By exemplifying ethical behaviour, leaders can create an environment conducive to moral engagement.

Educating and Training: Educating individuals about moral standards and ethical decision-making can increase awareness and reduce the likelihood of moral disengagement.

Encouraging Accountability: Holding individuals accountable for their actions and ensuring consequences for unethical behaviour can act as a deterrent against moral disengagement.

Creating an Ethical Climate: Establishing an organizational or social climate that values integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct can significantly reduce moral disengagement.

Fostering Moral Reflection: Encouraging individuals to reflect on the moral implications of their actions can enhance self-awareness and reduce the likelihood of disengagement.

Concluding Remarks

Bandura closes his essay on moral disengagement suggesting that given the many psychological devices for disengaging moral control, society cannot rely entirely on the will of individuals. However righteous our individual moral standards, we do not seem to be capable of providing safeguards against human cruelty. Civilised life, he says, in addition to humane personal codes, requires social systems that uphold compassionate behaviour and renounce cruelty.

Bandura says that dictatorial political systems disguised as democracy, those that exercise tight control over communication systems can more easily promote moral disengagement than pluralistic egalitarian ones. Political diversity and tolerance of dissent allow challenges to suspect moral appeals. Healthy scepticism toward moral pretensions puts a further check on the misuse of morality for inhumane purposes. To function humanely, societies must establish effective social safeguards against the misuse of institutional power for exploitive and destructive purposes, Baandura says. It should be made difficult for people to remove humanity from their conduct.

Yes, it should. But I have little confidence that collectively we can change things for the better because the crowd are so easily influenced by rhetoric and appeals to nationality and our apparent innate fear of that which we do not know or understand.

References

1. Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2011). Moral disengagement in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(2), 93-108.

2. White, J., Bandura, A., & Bero, L. A. (2009). Moral disengagement in the corporate world. Accountability in research, 16(1), 41-74.

3. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101-119.

4. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

5. Hogan, R., Kaiser, R. B., Sherman, R. A., & Harms, P. D. (2021). Twenty years on the dark side: Six lessons about bad leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 73(3), 199.