Blog 1. Genocide

Social Psychological Variables of Genocide

Introduction
A systematic attempt to annihilate a racial group or nation - more commonly referred to as genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006) - can be seen as occurring when a ‘perfect storm’ of social psychological variables come together.” These variables include cognitive errors and biases such as confirmation bias, illusory correlations and belief-perseverance. These errors and biases result from human’s innate tendency to use mental shortcuts (heuristics) and may lead to negative perceptions and violence toward members of other groups. Genocide leaders and the media influence these cognitions and behaviors. Crisis situations can further perpetuate the development of genocide. These variables and the way they interact will be discussed with reference to the major genocides of the 20th century.

Cognitive Factors
Humans tend to divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’ or into ‘in groups’ and ‘out groups’ and adopt a more positive view toward the ‘in group.’ This is known as ‘in group bias’ (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). When highly positive ‘in-group’ views are coupled with extremely negative ‘out-group’ views, stereotyping and prejudicial attitudes toward the ‘out-group’ may occur resulting in an ideology of supremacy (Staub, 2003, p55). These factors are highly predictive of aggressive behaviour (Baumiester, Smart & Boden, 1996). For example, the Hutu leaders believed Hutus were superior to Tutsis referring to them as cockroaches. This was a major factor in the Rwanda genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). Similarly, the Nazis viewed themselves and all people of the Aryan race as far superior to the other races i.e. Jews, Slavs and gypsies (Adalian, 1997, p60). Genocide leaders may try to promote this scenario. For instance, Hutu leaders in the Rwanda genocide used fear based propaganda radio broadcasts to polarise themselves from the Tutsis (Barker, 2004).

‘In group bias’ can lead to a perceived-threat orientation, which strongly predicts prejudicial and aggressive behaviour (Bobo & Hutchings, 1996). A culture with a perceived-threat orientation may assume that the other culture poses a threat and thus prepare for conflict (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). Leaders wishing to promote violence can enhance this perception. For example, Nazi Germany used stereotypes to enhance the perception of threat Jews posed. Nazis warned citizens that Jews were ‘a growing tumour that must be excised. Movies such as ‘The Eternal Jew’ portrayed Jews as a spreading plague of rats (Adalain, 1997, p63). Similarly Tutsis in Rwanda became identified as a threatening invading force despite having historical roots in the same region as the Hutus (Mamdani, 2001, p70).

The way humans’ process information can also abet the development of hatred and violence (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). The term ‘cognitive miser’ refers to humans’ natural tendency to minimise the amount of thinking where possible. Humans utilise the less taxing automatic processing in preference over the more laborious conscious processing (Fiske & Taylor, 1991, p13). Hence, humans often take mental shortcuts known as heuristics when processing information. This can lead to errors (Nisbett & Ross, 1980, pp13 - 14).

People often automatically seek information that supports their beliefs while ignoring evidence that disproves their beliefs. This is known as confirmation bias (Swann & Read, 1981). Such a bias was evident in the nationalist Yugoslavian media who published a distorted account of history that served to generate increased ethno political hatred. According to the Helsinki Watch (cited in Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006) “The constant invocation of history to bolster ethnic nationalism has impeded the search for lasting and equitable political solutions to ethnic strife in Yugoslavia.”

Another cognitive error known as ‘illusory correlation’ involves people inferring connections between unrelated phenomena. ‘Illusory correlations’ provide seemingly sound evidence to support a belief system despite their falsity (Ward & Jenkins, 1965). Unfortunately, once beliefs are created, humans are extremely reluctant to abandon them. This is known as ‘belief-perseverance’ (Ross, Lepper & Hubbard, 1975). This is why certain cultural groups may tenaciously hold onto erroneous beliefs about other groups for a long period of time. This is more common in cultures with a history of marginalisation and bias. Leaders may exploit these cognitive errors to promote violence (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). This is well illustrated in the use of “The protocols of the Elders of Zion” to strengthen anti-Semitic’s belief perseverance of a fictitious Jewish world dominance conspiracy (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

The ‘fundamental attribution error’ is a cognitive bias involving automatically attributing others behaviour to internal dispositions whilst failing to take into account situational factors. People are more likely to make a fundamental attribution to others than themselves. This is known as the ‘actor-observer effect’. When these attributions are made in relation to entire groups, it is referred to as the ‘ultimate attribution error’ (Ross et al, 1975). This leads to the belief that animosity between groups is built into the two opposing parties. For instance, the Yugoslavian mass murders and the Rwandan genocide are often dismissed as primordially ingrained hatreds that are permanently built-in to an underlying social identity. This in turn leads to an ignorance of political, social and economic antecedents. This influences bystanders’ appraisal of the situation and perhaps decreases their motivation to prevent the situation escalating further (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

Additionally, when the fundamental attribution error is coupled with the motivation to retain a belief of a just world, this can result in blaming the victim for the atrocities they had to endure (Lerner, 1980, p7). Such as the aftermath of World War Two, some people proposed that perhaps the Jews might have been partly responsible for the holocaust (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). This may be in an attempt to diminish cognitive dissonance (Staub, 2003, p59).

Influence of leaders
The influence of leaders plays a major role in the development of genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). Research on personality traits of genocide leaders has found moderate correlations with personality characteristics such as charisma, desire for power and dominance, self-confidence, self-direction and intelligence (Bass & Stogdill, 1990, p8; Chemers & Ayman, 1993, p18; Hollander, 1985; Simonton, 1984, p45).

Genocide leaders are motivated by situations that cause difficult living conditions, which are unanticipated and unusual for those involved. These situations make it easier for selfish leaders to exert their influence. Political crisis, economic crises or the effects of war were evident leading up to all the major genocides of the 20th century (Staub, 2003, p68). These genocides resulted in the perpetrators benefiting financially, especially those in leadership positions. For instance although Rwanda suffered economically, the Hutu leadership became increasingly wealthy. The Nazis benefited from stolen money and art funnelled into Swiss bank accounts (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

Cultural Factors
Also, for genocide to occur, violence must be acceptable within the culture. The major genocides all occurred in cultures that had a long history of conflict and war. In these cultures aggression is used as a normative problem-solving skill (Staub, 2003, p63). Cultures with an aggressive history, particularly those glorify violence (i.e. military parades, heroic violent media etc) are most vulnerable to genocide (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

Many cultures promote and hold in high esteem compliance, obedience and conformity and often there are harsh penalties for not abiding by these cultural demands such as verbal aggression, physical violence and ostracism (Levin & Paulus, 1989). Genocide group members face immense pressure to partake in hatred and violence and fear the ramifications of failing to conform (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006). The pressure to conform is enhanced by the presence of a powerful authority figure. This is evident in Milgram’s (1965) obedience studies. Research has shown that using both a strong authority figure and starting out with smaller acts of compliance and gradually progressing to major acts of compliance (otherwise known as foot-in-the-door technique) is an effective technique used by genocide leaders to facilitate violence (Haritos-Fatouros, 1988).

The effect of group formation
The formation of groups, regardless of the nature, can increase the potential capacity for violence. Groups promote a perception of anonymity and deindividuation (Festinger, Pepitone & Newcomb, 1952). This may result in lack of self-awareness and a perception of lack of responsibility of individual group members. This has been shown to increase the propensity for violence once provoked (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989). This is evident in groups such as Hitler’s youth and the Khmer Rouge (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2006).

Furthermore, if individuals in a group hold similar beliefs on an issue, these beliefs tend to perpetuate as a function of being part of the group. This phenomenon is referred to as groupthink. Unfortunately, when groups involve views of prejudice these views can also be enhanced (Myers & Bishop, 1970). For instance, Slovidam Milosovic utilised ‘group think’ by expelling those with reform or moderate agendas from the Serbian Central Committee enabling him to more efficiently put in action his agenda for ethnic cleansing (Oberschall, 2001, p28). Likewise, extremist Hutu leaders attacked moderate Hutus at the beginning of the 1994 Rwanda genocide in order to eliminate their influence and promote their own views (Barker, 2004).

Conclusion
It is clear that there are numerous interdependent psychological variables involved in the development of genocide (see Figure 1). These variables include Humans’ innate cognitive predisposition to use shortcuts whilst processing information making them vulnerable to cognitive errors and biases. These errors and biases can result in negative attitudes, stereotyping and prejudicial views toward certain cultural groups. Leaders, the media and crisis situations, can manipulate all these factors.

References
Adalian, R. P., Totten, S., Parsons, W. S. & Charny, I. (1997). The Armenian genocide. Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views. New York, N.Y: Garland.

Bass, B. M. and Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York, N.Y: Free press.

Barker, G. (2004). Ghosts of Rwanda [video recording]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Services, (frontline).

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L. & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egoism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5-33.

Bobo, L. and Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: extending Blumer's theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 951-972.

Chemers, M. M. & Ayman, R. (1993). Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, San Diego, C.A: Academic Press.

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A. & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.

Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed). New York, N.Y: Random House.

Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1988). The official torturer: a learning model for obedience to the authority of violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(13), 1107-1120.

Hollander, E. P., Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (1985). Leadership and power. Handbook of Social Psychology, 2, 485-537

Lerner, M. J. (1980) The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York, N.Y: Plenum.

Levin, J. M. & Paulus, P. B. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. Psychology of Group Influence, 187-231.

Mamdani, M. (2001). When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18(1), 57-76.

Myers, D. G. & Bishop, G. D. (1970). Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science 169(3947), 778-789.

Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L. (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Human Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Oberschall, A. (2001). From ethnic cooperation to violence and war in Yugoslavia. Ethnopolitical Warfare: Causes, Consequences and Possible Solutions, Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

Prentice-Dunn, S. & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. Psychology of Group Influence, 87-109.

Ross, L., Lepper, M. R. and Hubbard, M. (1975) Perseverance in self perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 880-892.

Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, Creativity and Leadership: Historiometric Inquiries. Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press.

Staub, E. (2003). The Psychology of Good and Evil, New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.

Swann, W. B. Read, S. J. (1981) Acquiring self-knowledge: the search for feedback that fits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(6), 1119-1128.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7-24.

Ward, W. C. & Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 19(3), 231-241.

Woolf, L. M., & Hulsizer, M. R. (2006). Psychosocial roots of genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention. Journal of Genocide Research, 7(1), 101-128.

Appendix 1. Self-Assessment
Theory
I presented a number of theoretical concepts in my essay giving brief examples of the central concepts. Due to the word limit some relevant theory had to be excluded and descriptions were brief.

Research
I feel that my essay provided a sufficient up to date representation of the available research. Several examples were provided from a number of 20th century genocides. Alternatively, I could have provided fewer examples in greater depth. I believe that I have shown an understanding of the social psychological research on genocide and presented it in a concise relevant fashion.

Written expression
My essay was written and referenced in APA format. A concept map was provided to outline the major concepts of the essay and how they relate to each other. A simple writing style, logical sequence and subheadings were used to enhance readability.
- Flesch reading ease = 30.5
- Flesch-Kincaid grade level = 12.0
Readability could have been improved if I had more proficient computer skills. I could have possibly included a table with more information. Also If my concept mapping skills were better I could have delivered more information through that.

Online engagement
My online engagement has been consistent throughout the semester. Although I may lack technical expertise I have initiated many interesting discussions through my own blog posts, participated in numerous other peoples posts and posted a link to relevant articles. With improved technical skills my online engagement could become more valuable.