One of the most challenging problems psychologists face is explaining the willingness of humans to physically and psychologically harm others. Historical and current events show that seemingly ordinary people are readily capable of harming others, despite the powerful prohibition against violence that most people are brought up with. An example of this is the Holocaust; the genocide of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II, led by Adolf Hitler. Many of the perpetrators of the Holocaust had previously been normal, sane members of society. This raises the question – what motivated these individuals to become murderers for Hitler’s evil regime?
The social identity theory aims to explain how social categorisation affects intergroup behaviours (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). It states that we acquire positive social identities to maintain and enhance our self-esteem. Because of this, we are motivated to show the superiority of our ‘in-group’ compared to relative ‘out-groups’. This has been supported by research; for example, Jetten, Spears and Manstead (1997) found that a threat to a group’s distinctiveness led to more in-group bias. Staub (1992) suggests that when a group is functioning poorly, its members feel threatened and frustrated. In order to overcome their difficulties, the group finds a scapegoat to blame for all of their problems. A scapegoat has great psychological usefulness for a group; it promises a solution to their problems as they work together against the scapegoat, and this makes members of the group feel connected as they have a common goal. During the Holocaust, the Nazi’s were the ‘in group’ and the Jews were the scapegoats, otherwise known as the ‘out group’. Devaluing the scapegoat also raises the self-esteem of members of the group (Staub, 1992). Losing the First World War had a very negative impact on Germany’s economy and morale, so using the Jews as a scapegoat helped to raise the Nazi’s self-esteem and unite them as a group.
Tajfel et al.’s (1979) social identity theory is useful in explaining why ordinary people became motivated to kill in the Holocaust, as it argues that society may be a lot more important than personality types when accounting for prejudice. However, it does still take into account individual differences, and explains why some individuals are more likely to discriminate than others. For example, some individuals may have a greater need for acceptance than others and may be motivated to discriminate in order to gain social approval.
The social identity theory states that competition is not necessary for intergroup discrimination to occur; merely categorising individuals into in-groups and out-groups is enough. This can be shown using a minimal group paradigm method of study, which investigates the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. For example, Tajfel (1970), using a minimal group paradigm, found that subjects favoured their own ‘in-group’ over another ‘out-group’. This study also found that the most important factor in subjects’ decision-making was maximising the differences between their own group and the ‘out-group’. This evidence has been replicated in a wide range of cultures (Lemyre and Smith, 1985). However, these cultures are dominantly Western and other, less competitive cultures have been ignored. Therefore, it may be the case that conflict is not always inevitable in every culture. During the Holocaust, the Nazi culture was very competitive, as they were aiming to get Germany out of the Depression it was in and rise to power to dominate Europe. This may explain why they were so intent on discriminating against the Jews.
The minimal group paradigm is the main methodology used to support the social learning theory. It has proved to be a useful method of study, as it has revealed that seemingly meaningless distinctions between groups can trigger intergroup bias. However, Blank (1997) argues that demand characteristics may explain why subjects show intergroup bias. For example, subjects may use group membership information to guide their behaviour in the experiment, rather than acting instinctively.
In order to prevent an event as tragic as the Holocaust from occurring again, we need to understand the psychological, cultural, and societal causes of genocide. The social identity theory is useful in explaining why intergroup discrimination occurs, and how easily it can occur. Although we cannot wholly attribute the horrific events of the Holocaust to the social identity theory, it gives us an idea of how normal people became part of a group which motivated them to become cold blooded killers.
References
Arbeit Macht Frei Picture (n. d.). Retrieved from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/4/19/1334794231944/Holocaust-survivors-Israe-008.jpg
Blank, H. (1997). Cooperative Participants Discriminate (not always): A Logic of Conversation Approach to the Minimal Group Paradigm. Current Research in Social Psychology, 2(5).
Jetten, J., Spears, R. and Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 635-657.
Lemyre, L. and Smith, P. M. (1985). Intergroup Discrimination and Self-Esteem in the Minimal Group Paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 660-670.
Staub, E. (1992). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: http://books.google.com
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. pp. 33-47.
The Holocaust Picture (n. d.). Retrieved from: http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/public/cms/70/92/204/268/yN7eKq_web.jpg
psychologyfg 
The need to belong played a key role in the formation of Nazi Germany. Frequent interactions in a bond are essential as lack of attachment can lead to illness, both physically and emotionally (Baumeister & Leary, 1995); this was classically seen in rhesus monkeys choosing a cloth surrogate mother over food because the emotional need to attach is crucial in belonging (Harlow, 1961). The need to belong can explain why Nazi Germany formed such a strong in-group, particularly when they were considered the out-group to the rest of the world following the First World War. Germany experienced an extreme form of social exclusion, which has been found to increase aggression as well as reducing the will to help those outside the in-group (Baumeister, Brewer, Tice, & Twenge, 2007). Eisenberger, Lieberman and Williams (2003) found the same pattern of fMRI results when a person experiences social exclusion or physical pain. The pain of social exclusion combined with low morale and the need to belong makes it easy to see why the Nazis came together as such a strong entity then were motivated to behave in extreme ways and use Jewish people as scapegoats to raise self-esteem as explained in the blog.
References:
Baumeister, R. F., Brewer, L. E., Tice, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (2007). Thwarting the need to belong: Understanding the interpersonal and inner effects of social exclusion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 506-520. Doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00020.x
Baumeister R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643) 290-292. doi: 10.1126/science.1089134
Harlow, H. F. (1961). The development of affectional patterns in infant monkeys. Determinants of Infant Behaviour, pp. 75-88, Oxford, England: Wiley, xv,307pp. Foss, B. M. Editor
Despite the empirical support in favour of the social identity theory, critics have suggested that the theory oversimplifies the importance of self-esteem in group membership. For example, Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) created a scale to measure the individual differences in collective self-esteem as opposed to personal levels of self-esteem. In the social identity theory, self-esteem is largely unaccounted for but Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) concluded it was a vital factor in creating group boundaries and forming group identity. Due to the omission of this vital factor, it could be argued that the social identity theory fails as a holistic explanation for adverse group behaviour. Instead, researchers have proposed the theory of deindividuation to explain how people become motivated to commit heinous acts. The theory of deindividuation proposes that people lose emotional awareness when acting under anonymity and has been used by Staub (1996) as an explanation for genocidal behaviour. The decreased emotional awareness is thought to be a result of both reduced self evaluation and reduced evaluation apprehension (Diener, Lusk, LeFour & Flax, 1990). Support for the theory of deindividuation as an explanation for immoral behaviour is provided by Diener, Fraser, Beaman and Kelem (1976) who found that Halloween trick-or-treaters took more sweets when they were anonymous, i.e. had a mask on and did not announce their name, compared to those who were not anonymous. In light of this, it could be concluded that the social identity ignores a vital component of group membership and thus deindividuation theory offers a more holistic explanation of how individuals can be motivated to engage in immoral behaviour.
Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of Deindividuation Variables On Stealing Among Halloween Trick-Or-Treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 171-183. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.33.2.178.
Diener, E., Lusk. R., LeFour, D., & Flax, R. (1980). Deindividuation: Effects of Group Size, Density, Number of Observers, and Group Member Similarity on Self-Consciousness and Disinhibitive Behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 449-459. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.449.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self Evaluation of One’s Social Identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-318. DOI:10.1177/0146167292183006.
Staub. E., (1996). Cultural-Societal Roots of Violence: The Examples of Genocidal Violence and Of Contemporary Youth Violence in The United States. American Psychologist, 51, 117-132.DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.117.
Various factors could have affected the degree to which the Nazis felt they belonged to their group. This would have effected how much they internalised the group’s norms beliefs and behaviours.
Doosje, Spears and Ellemers (2002) found that there is a difference in levels of identification within a group, (high and low identifiers), low identifiers only show solidarity to their group when the prospect of improving inter-group status hierarchy is likely, whereas high identifiers will identify with their group even if the group faces a bleak or uncertain future. This may explain why the Nazis were strong at the beginning with both high and low identifiers believing in their cause. It also explains why they persisted to fight even towards the end of the war when it was looking unlikely that they would win.
Perreault and Bourhis (1999) found that when participants were able to choose which group to belong to, compared to being randomly assigned to groups, lead to higher in group identification which in turn is positively associated with discrimination towards out-groups. So by choosing to join the Nazi regime the Nazis would have had higher levels of group identification which would mean higher levels of solidarity within that group, and more discrimination to other groups.
The level to which we identify with our in-group could provide one explanation to why the Nazis committed their crimes of war. As they were able to chose to join the regime giving them a high level of group identification and there was an opportunity for them to improve their inter-group status.
References:
Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Ellemers, N.(2002). Social identity as both cause and effect: The development of group identification in response to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup status hierarchy. British journal of social psychology, 41(1), 57-76. doi: 10.1348/014466602165054
Perreault, S., & Bourhis, R.Y.(1999). Ethnocentrism, Social identification and discrimination. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 25(1), 92-103. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025001008
As mentioned scapegoating a group can be advantageous by increasing self-esteem of the in-group and lowering esteem of the out-group. On the other hand, this exclusion of a group can have a negative impact on the in-group also. We, as humans fear the unknown (Fox, 1987) and by excluding a group we are reducing the chance to learn and gain knowledge of their potentially different culture. Witte and Allen (2000) conducted a meta-analysis and found that the stronger fear stimulus the more persuasive it will be, suggesting the grand impact fear has on behaviour. Nazi controlled Germany was a highly fearful time for many. Soldiers were not exempt from fear; many German soldiers were shot by their own army for failing to follow orders (Bartov, 1992). This highlights that fear may add to the explanation to why there was such extensive genocide during the Holocaust.
References
Bartov, O. (1992). The Conduct of War: Soldiers and the Barbarization of Warfare. The Journal of Modern History, 64, 32-45.
Fox, E. R. W. (1987). Fear of the Unknown. Western Journal of Medicine,146(6), 759.
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615.
“The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.” (Milgram, 1974).
Your opening statement that the perpetrators had been sane members of society before the onset of the holocaust raises many questions; firstly do we know this for sure? What scientific evidence is there to support this statement? These perpetrators of the most heinous crimes imaginable against another human being support the conformity and obedience theory of Milgram (1963).
Milgram in (1963) became very interested in the case of Adolph Eichmann who had been tried for the death of millions of Jews, when asked why he did it, he answered with, I was just following orders. Milgram fascinated by this revelation set out to test the theory of obedience. His famous electric shock experiment uncovered more than was expected and his discoveries shocked the scientific world. As we approached another century a society that apparently learn from its mistakes sadly learn nothing. Blass (1999) conducted further obedience experiments in line with Milgram’s and found that Milgram’s findings unfortunately still hold true. So it seems the question is not whether a person is sane or not but how far will they go when an order is given.
Refrences
Cherry (Date Unknown). The Milgram Obedience Experiment: The Perils of Obedience Retrieved 3rd December 2013 http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371.
Moral disengagement could have had an influence in the events that you described. Moral disengagement is the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply in a situation. According to the mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1986), this occurs via: a reconstruction of events, displacement and diffusion of responsibility, disregard of the consequences and devaluation of the victim.
The more obvious other contrasting inhumanities are, the more likely it is that one’s own conduct will appear socially acceptable (Bandura, 1999). Events can be reconstructed to be portrayed as moral, if they fit into the prevailing culture. If a legitimate authority figure accepts responsibility, will diffuse responsibility from that person (Milgram, 1974), and they are spared self-condemning reactions. Thus, making inhuman acts easier. Another key aspect is the disregard of the consequences – this is aided by dehumanisation. Once dehumanised, they are viewed as subhuman objects (Kelma, 1973), and the consequences are deemed irrelevant.
All of these social forces took place in the Holocaust. The prevailing culture was that of inhumanities and death frequently occurring. Responsibility could be passed onto higher-level authority figures and the victims were dehumanised.
—-
References:
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, 376. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209.
Kelma, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanisation of victims and victimisers. Journal of social issues, 29, 25-61. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
Moral disengagement could have had an influence in the events that you described. Moral disengagement is the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply in a situation. According to the mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1986), this occurs via: a reconstruction of events, displacement and diffusion of responsibility, disregard of the consequences and devaluation of the victim.
The more obvious other contrasting inhumanities are, the more likely it is that one’s own conduct will appear socially acceptable (Bandura, 1999). Events can be reconstructed to be portrayed as moral, if they fit into the prevailing culture. If a legitimate authority figure accepts responsibility, will diffuse responsibility from that person (Milgram, 1974), and they are spared self-condemning reactions. Thus, making inhuman acts easier. Another key aspect is the disregard of the consequences – this is aided by dehumanisation. Once dehumanised, they are viewed as subhuman objects (Kelma, 1973), and the consequences are deemed irrelevant.
All of these social forces took place in the Holocaust. The prevailing culture was that of inhumanities and death frequently occurring. Responsibility could be passed onto higher-level authority figures and the victims were dehumanised.
—-
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, 376. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209.
Kelma, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanisation of victims and victimisers. Journal of social issues, 29, 25-61. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
Violence can be caused by numerous factors, whether they be racial, cultural, symbolic or even dehumanisation (Christie & Wessels, 2008) as was seen in Nazi Germany but there are different kinds of violence, and Political Violence is argued to be different to other kinds (Mider, 2013) as it is condemned but also arguably indispensable for some governments to maintain control.
Referring to the In-Group/Out-Group phenomenon the research does suggest that we are likely to see our own in-group as better and more unique than the out-group (Malloy, 2013) and this tendency is stronger in men. However, the male-only in-groups have been found to focus on in-group solidarity rather than oppression of the out-group (Yamagishi & Mifune, 2009) despite out-group degradation being a more prevalent feature in older age groups (Inguglia & Musso, 2013). And at the same time it has been observed that, in the modern world at least, in-group/out-group formation and violence occurs less between ethnicity and more toward those who act aggressively, forcing those who act violently into the out-groups (Reijntes et al, 2013).
Whether this be a sign of social evolution and us learning from mistakes of the past or simply a highlighter to pinpoint events such as the discrimination in Nazi Germany as social anomalies is up for debate, but it at least presents some evidence that the civilised and diplomatic world we live in is indeed at least some-what how we claim it to be; but while I’d like to think that it’s always been that way, looking at history I believe it is because we are learning from our mistakes of the past and they are motivating us to try and make a better future.
– – – – – References – – – – –
Christie, D. J., & Wessells, M. (2008). Social psychology of violence. Encyclopedia of violence, peace, & conflict, 28, 1955-1963.
Inguglia, C., & Musso, P. (2013). In-group favouritism and out-group derogation towards national groups: Age-related differences among Italian school children. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Malloy, T. E. (2013). Trait ratings of the in-group and out-group with minimal acquaintance: Differentiation and out-group favorability. Psychologie Française, 58(4), 337-350.
Mider, D. (2013). The anatomy of violence: A study of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(6), 702-708.
Reijntjes, A., Thomaes, S., Kamphuis, J. H., Bushman, B. J., Reitz, E., & Telch, M. J. (2013). Youths’ displaced aggression against in-and out-group peers: An experimental examination. Journal of experimental child psychology.
Yamagishi, T., & Mifune, N. (2009). Social exchange and solidarity: in-group love or out-group hate?. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(4), 229-237.
Milgram’s (1963) research looked to understand why the events of the Holocaust took place. While there are a whole range of ethical implications to this research, it’s a classic for a reason; with 65% of participants ‘administering’ what would have been a fatal electric shock to their learners. This certainly argues for situational factors of aggression and obedience to authority. The idea of obedience is important here, I think, because disobedience would have led to harsh punishment and even death so many of those involved in the events of the Holocaust may have done so out of fear of the consequences they could face.
Hofling (1966) also looked at obedience to authority figures in a hospital setting, where nurses 21 out of 22 nurses would have administered an overdose of medicine to patients after receiving the instructions over the phone, from an unknown doctor. Some argued that this was down to the nature of the trust between a nurse and a doctor and the nurses expectation of obedience to their superiors. Again, the situation plays a key role in why people might obey orders to do something they know is wrong.
Milgram, S., (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (4). 371–8. doi:10.1037/h0040525
Hofling, C., (1966) An Experimental Study of Nurse-Physician Relationships. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143.171-180.