The Impact of Group Norms and Generalization of Risks across Groups on Judgments of War Behavior

This paper investigates the effects of war experiences across three different levels (individuals, groups, and contexts) on moral judgments related to violations of humanitarian norms. Competing hypotheses derived from different theoretical perspectives are empirically evaluated. Social psychological studies of war traditionally highlight a reversal of morality and group norms justifying violence against outgroups. Rationalistic models insist on the importance of realistic costs on the choice of individuals. As a complement to these traditions, we suggest that situations in which risks are generalized across group boundaries tend to provoke a strengthening of principles, such as humanitarian norms, that enable the protection of the material and symbolic integrity of a community. Multilevel analyses of the international People on War survey dataset (N = 8,121) show that support for the ingroup's struggle, at both individual and group levels, predicts stronger justification of violence. Simultaneously, at the context level, generalization of war‐related risks predicts stronger condemnation of violations of humanitarian principles. These findings are consistent with a collective vulnerability model and, only in part, with the intractable conflict model.     

Individual‐level and community‐level effects of war trauma on social representations related to humanitarian law

Theoretical and empirical accounts of violent intergroup conflict or reactions to victimization suggested psychosocial processes that are likely to paradoxically enhance war victims' justification of violations of humanitarian norms. To test for differences and similarities between individual and community reactions, multilevel analyses of the ‘People on War’ dataset were conducted. This data combines survey responses from fourteen different communities recently involved in armed conflict (N = 12, 047). At the individual level, findings support a specific cycle‐of‐violence hypothesis, indicating that victims of war report less support for a legal conception of humanitarian norms than do non‐victims. In contrast, at the community level, the higher the rate of victims, the more frequently community members adopt a legal conception of humanitarian norms. Further, the strength of condemnation of humanitarian norm violations is positively related to war duration and magnitude of fatalities. These findings are interpreted within a social‐representational framework. The collective experience of generalized vulnerability strengthens a shared perception of the need for formal justice, which cannot be reduced to the sum of the psychological consequences of community members' individual experiences of war trauma. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Iris Marion Young on responsible intervention: reimagining humanitarian intervention

Iris Marion Young took a strong stance against humanitarian intervention and other so-called legitimate instances of what she calls ‘official violence’. Nevertheless, she was also aware that there may be some situations for which military humanitarian intervention should at least be considered. Young was concerned that some states will use their obligation to defend against human rights violations as a mechanism in securing or maintaining global dominance. In addition, she recognized that what counts as a violation of human rights is not uncontroversial; human rights norms and conventions are interpreted, negotiated, and otherwise contested. In this article, I build on Young’s arguments for a social connection model of responsibility by applying it to a situation where a forceful response to violence might be justified. I juxtapose Young’s position with the emerging international standard called ‘the responsibility to protect’ in order to suggest an account of intervention for global governance relations.     

Human rights and mental health among Latin American women in situations of state-sponsored violence. Bibliographic resources

A Task Force of the American Psychological Association Division 35, Psychology of Women, has been collecting resources that address issues of human rights and mental health among Latin American women living in situations of war and/or state-sponsored violence. This work is being conducted primarily by women's groups, progressive organizations, and individual women in these contexts of institutionalized political violence. This paper describes our reflections on themes that emerged from our reading of this work. We discuss the false dichotomy between public and private violence, the silencing of women as an inevitable consequence of state-imposed violence, and the collective efforts of women to resist violence and heal its effects. These themes suggest that extreme violence against women can be most adequately understood and responded to within a psychosocial and cultural framework. We examined three issues that emerge from the material gathered by the Task Force that suggest how some Latin American psychologists and activists have begun to articulate such a framework: (a) exile within and outside of one's country of origin; (b) torture, the most extreme form of state-sponsored violence; and (c) nontraditional, culturally appropriate interventions that are alternatives to Anglo-Saxon theory and practice. The work of Latin American individuals is described here as a resource for all who are engaged in the struggle to achieve justice for women.     

A comparison of concepts in self-psychology and Winnicott's theory of the development of the self

The humiliation and traumatization of political opponents during periods of violent and non-violent conflict can create deadlocked situations with great potential for regression, and may serve to aggravate the conflict or escalate the level of violence. In this article, I will examine this type of regressive dynamic. My point of departure is the current terror situation and the “war against terror” as it is being conducted in different parts of the world. The key concepts in this connection are violations of human rights, victim psychology, group processes and the development of regressive group identities. Political-ideological-religious discourses can serve to mediate between collective unconscious fantasies and the actual misery/humiliation experienced at group and individual levels. They can reinforce an identity as victim, and the significance of this identity is often underestimated when the background of terror and violent conflicts is being analysed.     

Collective Efficacy as a Task Specific Process: Examining the Relationship Between Social Ties, Neighborhood Cohesion and the Capacity to Respond to Violence, Delinquency and Civic Problems

In the neighborhood effects literature, collective efficacy is viewed as the key explanatory process associated with the spatial distribution of a range of social problems. While many studies usefully focus on the consequences of collective efficacy, in this paper we examine the task specificity of collective efficacy and consider the individual and neighborhood factors that influence residents’ perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy for specific tasks. Utilizing survey and administrative data from 4,093 residents nested in 148 communities in Australia, we distinguish collective efficacy for particular threats to social order and assess the relative importance of social cohesion and neighborhood social ties to the development of collective efficacy for violence, delinquency and civic/political issues. Our results indicate that a model separating collective efficacy for specific problems from social ties and the more generalized notions of social cohesion is necessary when understanding the regulation potential of neighborhoods.     

Reflexive Communities: The Non-Western Church as Healing Community

Many non-Western Christian communities have experienced terrible human rights violations at the hands of fellow citizens, civil authorities, or rebel groups, Christian or otherwise. This article presents a brief and practical model of healing that attempts to remain consistent with the general characteristics of non-Western social realities. It suggests that rather than relying on the paucity of professional therapies offered in those contexts, non-Western churches themselves can become harbingers of healing for the traumatized community. By blending social theory with biblical narratives, this article proffers an example of how healing can take place within sociocentric communities.     

How Transitional Justice Processes and Official Apologies Influence Reconciliation: The Case of the Chilean ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ and ‘Political Imprisonment and Torture’ Commissions

Perceptions of the ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ and ‘Political Imprisonment and Torture’ commissions and related beliefs, emotions and socio‐emotional climate were analysed in people affected and unaffected by past political violence in Chile (N = 1278). People directly affected regard institutional apologies as less sincere and effective, and they were more critical of the commissions. Those who have a positive appraisal of the commissions, compared with people who disagree with the commissions activities, are less prone to forget past collective violence; report higher levels of negative emotions, such as shame, and positive ones, such as pride and hope, about the collective past; and consider that the commissions contributed to knowing the truth about what happened to victims and helped bring human rights violators to justice. Those appraising the commissions in a positive fashion also perceive a more positive emotional climate and inter‐group trust, have more confidence in institutions and report more universalistic values. A multiple‐regression analysis suggests that commissions play a relatively successful role as transitional justice rituals, reinforcing reconciliation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Links between community violence and the family system: evidence from children's feelings of relatedness and perceptions of parent behavior

In this study, we examined some of the ways in which broader ecological systems may influence the organization of behavior within the family system. Specifically, links between exposure to community violence and children's relationships with maternal caregivers were investigated in a sample of 127 urban children between the ages of 7 and 13 years. Children were asked to indicate whether they had been exposed to a wide variety of violent events. In addition, their feelings of relatedness and separation anxiety, and their perceptions of maternal behavior were assessed. It was expected that exposure to community violence would be associated with feeling less secure with caregivers. Consistent with predictions from ecological-transactional theory, data supported this hypothesis. Children who reported that they had been exposed to high levels of community violence also indicated that they felt less positive affect when with their caregiver, were dissatisfied with how close they felt to her, felt more separation anxiety, and reported more negative maternal behavior than children exposed to less violence. Findings are discussed in terms of how violence may affect the family system and the protective function of human attachment.     

Animal Cruelty,Domestic Violence,and Social Disorganization in a Suburban Setting

ABSTRACT

Breaking away from a focus on the influence of individual characteristics on animal cruelty and guided by social disorganization theory, we investigated animal cruelty violations in block groups in a city in coastal Virginia. We discovered that block groups with higher levels of social disorganization, measured by economic disadvantage, ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, and family disruption, had higher levels of animal cruelty violations and reports of aggravated and simple domestic violence. The rates of animal cruelty violations were significantly correlated with aggravated domestic violence but not reports of simple domestic violence.     

Communities as conduits of harm: A social identity analysis of appraisal,coping and justice-seeking in response to historic collective victimization

Social identity approach (SIA) research shows that community members often work together to support survivors of collective victimization and rectify social injustices. However, complexities arise when community members have been involved in perpetrating these injustices. While many communities are unaware of their role in fostering victimization, others actively deny their role and responsibility to restore justice. We explore these processes by investigating experiences of community violence and collective justice-seeking among Albanian survivors of dictatorial crimes. Survivors (N = 27) were interviewed, and data were analysed using theoretical thematic analysis guided by the SIA. The analysis reveals the diverse ways communities can become harmful ‘Social Curses’. First, communities in their various forms became effective perpetrators of fear and control (e.g., exclusion and/or withholding ingroup privileges) during the dictatorship because of the close relationship between communities and their members. Second, communities caused harm by refusing to accept responsibility for the crimes, and by undermining attempts at collective action to address injustices. This lack of collective accountability also fosters survivors' feelings of exclusion and undermines their hope for systematic change. Implications for SIA processes relating to health/wellbeing (both Social Cure and Curse) are discussed. We also discuss implications for understanding collective action and victimhood.     

Reconciling Just Causes for Armed Humanitarian Intervention

Michael Walzer argues that the just cause for humanitarian intervention is not met if there are only “ordinary” levels of human rights abuses within a state because he believes that respecting the right to collective self-determination is more morally important than protecting other individual rights. Several prominent critics of Walzer advocate for a more permissive account of a just cause. They argue that protecting individuals’ human rights is more morally important than respecting a right to collective self-determination. I argue that these two accounts are far more similar than either Walzer or his critics realize because collective self-determination requires the protection of some human rights in order to allow each person the opportunity to participate in collective choices. Consequently, the just cause for intervention is met whenever at least some important human rights of one person are violated and others are being credibly threatened. The counter intuitive conclusion of my argument is that justified interventions can actually promote rather than undermine collective self-determination because just interventions allow innocents, who otherwise would have excluded from this process, the opportunity to contribute to collective choices. Of course, a just cause is insufficient in itself for intervention to be permissible because other just war precepts must also be met.     

Dignity,Torture, and Human Rights

This paper focuses on a distinct puzzle for understanding the relationship between dignity and human rights. The puzzle is that dignity appears to enter human rights theory in two distinct roles: on the one hand, dignity is commonly pointed to as the foundation of human rights, i.e. that in virtue of which we have human rights. On the other hand, dignity is commonly pointed to as that which is at risk in a subset of human rights, paradigmatically torture. But how can dignity underpin all human rights, and yet only be at stake in very specific human rights violations? And if dignity is lost in torture, how can the tortured retain their human rights? In this paper I offer a solution to these puzzles, in the form of a new theory of dignity. On this new theory, an individual’s dignity can be constituted via either of two pathways: the agent’s own normative competencies, or the authority of her community. The former is what’s typically at stake in practices such as torture; it in virtue of the latter that we have human rights.     

Oppression and discrimination among lesbian,gay, bisexual,and Transgendered people and communities: a challenge for community psychology

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people continue to experience various forms of oppression and discrimination in North America and throughout the world, despite the social, legal, and political advances that have been launched in an attempt to grant LGBT people basic human rights. Even though LGBT people and communities have been actively engaged in community organizing and social action efforts since the early twentieth century, research on LGBT issues has been, for the most part, conspicuously absent within the very field of psychology that is explicitly focused on community research and action–Community Psychology. The psychological and social impact of oppression, rejection, discrimination, harassment, and violence on LGBT people is reviewed, and recent advances in the areas of LGBT health, public policy, and research are detailed. Recent advances within the field of Community Psychology with regard to LGBT research and action are highlighted, and a call to action is offered to integrate the knowledge and skills within LGBT communities with Community Psychology's models of intervention, prevention, and social change in order to build better theory and intervention for LGBT people and communities.     

Victim and Perpetrator Groups’ Divergent Perspectives on Collective Violence: Implications for Intergroup Relations

Groups in conflict develop strikingly different construals of the same violent events. These clashing perceptions of past violence can have detrimental consequences for intergroup relations and might provoke new hostilities. In this article, we integrate and juxtapose what we know about construals of collective violence by delineating the different dimensions along which these construals differ between victim and perpetrator groups: regarding the question of who is the victim, who is responsible for the harm doing, what the perpetrator’s intent was, how severe the violence was, and when it took place. Then, we discuss the individual‐ and group‐level factors (e.g., collective narratives, social identities) that shape these construals, as well as their implications for attitudes regarding the conflict and support for relevant policies. We distinguish two different core motives that drive construals and their outcomes among victim and perpetrator groups: Perpetrator groups try to cope with moral identity threats and preserve a positive image of the ingroup, while victim groups try to protect their ingroup from future harm doing and desire acknowledgment of their group’s experiences. Lastly, we discuss implications for strategies and interventions to address victim and perpetrator groups’ divergent perspectives of collective violence.     

Murderers and martyrs: Violence,discourse, and the (re)construction of meaning

In recent years, the question of violence has drawn attention from religious studies scholars and public commentators alike. From schoolchildren with guns to terrorists with bombs, the perpetrators of violent acts have forced communities, nations, and even scholars to grapple with the nature and meaning of violence. But although significant attention has been paid to religious groups that foster violence and to those that resist it, the ways in which violence challenges structures of meaning have been addressed primarily by theologians seeking to grapple with overwhelming episodes of violence. This article suggests that certain violent acts can be classed as ‘symbolically disruptive violence'—acts that threaten or shatter a group's symbolic world. Although this analytical concept has broad applicability, the article explores its relevance for one in‐depth case study: reactions to the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming.     

Role of collective self-esteem on youth violence in a collective culture

Youth violence involvement has always been the focus of significant research attention. However, as most of the studies on youth violence have been conducted in Western cultures, little is known about the antecedents of violence in the Asian context. Researchers have suggested that collectivism might be the reason for the lower violent crime rates in Asia. Nevertheless, the present study proposes an alternative approach to the collectivistic orientation and violence relationship: The possibility that allocentrism (collectivist tendency at the individual difference level) might shape the meaning of and the attitudes towards violence; thus not all aspects of a collectivist culture serve as deterrents for violence. Instead of viewing it as a random individual act, violence in a collective cultural context could be seen, under certain circumstances, as a social obligation to one's in-group (especially when one's in-group is supportive of violence) and as an internalization of the norms and values of the culture. Thus, the present study investigates the relationship between allocentrism and its relation to violence in a highly collectivist Asian culture, Singapore. We further hypothesized that collective self-esteem might serve as the mediator between allocentrism and the values of violence. Using a sample of 149 incarcerated Singaporean male adolescents, results support the proposed theoretical model whereby collective self-esteem was found to mediate between allocentrism and the culture's norms and attitudes of violence, which eventually lead to physical violence behaviours.