Theories of Personality 9th Edition

514 Part VI Learning-Cognitive Theories

morally consistent values. Bandura (2002a) insists that moral precepts predict

moral behavior only when those precepts are converted to action. In other words,

self-regulatory influences are not automatic but operate only if they are activated,

a concept Bandura calls selective activation.

How can people with strong moral beliefs concerning the worth and dignity of

all humankind behave in an inhumane manner to other humans? Bandura’s (1994)

answer is that “people do not ordinarily engage in reprehensible conduct until they

have justified to themselves the morality of their actions” (p. 72). By justifying the

morality of their actions, they can separate or disengage themselves from the conse-

quences of their behavior, a concept Bandura calls disengagement of internal control.

Disengagement techniques allow people, individually or working in concert

with others, to engage in inhumane behaviors while retaining their moral standards

(Bandura, 2002a). For example, politicians frequently convince their constituents

of the morality of war. Thus, wars are fought against “evil” people, people who

deserve to be defeated or even annihilated.

Selective activation and disengagement of internal control allow people with

the same moral standards to behave quite differently, just as they permit the same

person to behave differently in different situations. Figure 17.2 illustrates the var-

ious mechanisms through which self-control is disengaged or selectively activated.

First, people can redefine or reconstruct the nature of the behavior itself by such

techniques as morally justifying it, making advantageous comparisons, or euphe-

mistically labeling their actions. Second, they can minimize, ignore, or distort the

detrimental consequences of their behavior. Third, they can blame or dehumanize

the victim. Fourth, they can displace or diffuse responsibility for their behavior by

obscuring the relationship between their actions and the effects of those actions.

Redefine the Behavior

With redefinition of behavior, people justify otherwise reprehensible actions by a

cognitive restructuring that allows them to minimize or escape responsibility. They

can relieve themselves of responsibility for their behavior by at least three tech-

niques (see upper-left box in Figure 17.2).

Reprehensible

conduct

Detrimental

e

ects Victim

Moral justification

Palliative comparison

Euphemistic labeling

Displacement of responsibility

Diusion of responsibility

Minimizing, ignoring,

or misconstruing

the consequences

Dehumanization

Attribution of blame

FIGURE 17.2 Mechanisms through which internal control is selectively activated or

disengaged from reprehensible conduct at different points in the regulatory process.