Chapter 17 Bandura: Social Cognitive Theory 515The first is moral justification, in which otherwise culpable behavior is made
to seem defensible or even noble. Bandura (1986) cited the example of World War
I hero Sergeant Alvin York who, as a conscientious objector, believed that killing
was morally wrong. After his battalion commander quoted from the Bible the condi-
tions under which it was morally justified to kill and after a long prayer vigil, York
became convinced that killing enemy soldiers was morally defensible. Following his
redefining killing, York proceeded to kill and capture more than 100 German soldiers
and, as a result, became one of the greatest war heroes in American history.
A second method of reducing responsibility through redefining wrongful
behavior is to make advantageous or palliative comparisons between that behavior
and the even greater atrocities committed by others. The child who vandalizes a
school building uses the excuse that others broke even more windows.
A third technique in redefining behavior is the use of euphemistic labels.
Politicians who have pledged not to raise taxes speak of “revenue enhancement”
rather than taxes; some Nazi leaders called the murder of millions of Jews the
“purification of Europe” or “the final solution.”
Disregard or Distort the Consequences of Behavior
A second method of avoiding responsibility involves distorting or obscuring the rela-
tionship between the behavior and its detrimental consequences (see upper-center box
of Figure 17.2). Bandura (1986, 1999a) recognized at least three techniques of distort-
ing or obscuring the detrimental consequences of one’s actions. First, people can
minimize the consequences of their behavior. For example, a driver runs a red light
and strikes a pedestrian. As the injured party lies bleeding and unconscious on the
pavement, the driver says, “She’s not really hurt badly. She’s going to be okay.”
Second, people can disregard or ignore the consequences of their actions,
as when they do not see firsthand the harmful effects of their behavior. In wartime,
heads of state and army generals seldom view the total destruction and death result-
ing from their decisions.
Finally, people can distort or misconstrue the consequences of their actions,
as when a parent beats a child badly enough to cause serious bruises but explains
that the child needs discipline in order to mature properly.
Dehumanize or Blame the Victims
Third, people can obscure responsibility for their actions by either dehumanizing
their victims or attributing blame to them (see upper-right box in Figure 17.2).
In time of war, people often see the enemy as subhuman, so they need not feel
guilty for killing enemy soldiers. At various times in U.S. history, Jews, African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, homosexu-
als, and street people have become dehumanized victims. Otherwise kind, consider-
ate, and gentle people have perpetrated acts of violence, insult, or other forms of
mistreatment against these groups while avoiding responsibility for their own
behavior.
When victims are not dehumanized, they are sometimes blamed for the per-
petrator’s culpable conduct. A rapist may blame his victim for his crime, citing
her provocative dress or behavior.