Abstract
Most social science examinations of war are concerned with its occurrence, the admirable goal being to eliminate or at least reduce its frequency. However the destructiveness of wars and other incidents of mass killing are primarily a function of their size rather than their occasion. This chapter is most concerned with the psychological bases for the lack of restraint in intergroup conflict as expressed in event magnitude. It reports on the views of ‘bystanders’ to history, that is, individuals who were not directly involved in the events, as obtained from standardised questionnaires. The discussion, which is based on results from several large groups of college students in a number of locations, examines their beliefs about both the general principles that should be applied to armed conflict as well as the degree to which specific historical events were viewed as exceeding acceptable standards of behaviour.
I would like to thank Barry Holden for his valuable suggestions and Professors Mark Lumley at Wayne State, Tom Collier and Michael Riordan at the University of Michigan, Pat Regan at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand and Joyce Francis at American University for their gracious cooperation in data collection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
R. Rummel, ‘Power, Genocide and Mass Murder’, Journal of Peace Research, 31 (1994) 1–10.
S. Milgram, Obedience to Authority (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).
R. Brown and R. J. Herrnstein, Psychology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975) pp. 205–8.
R. Brammer, ‘Up and Down Wall Street: Oil Change’, Barron’s, 6 March 1995, pp. 3–4.
Turner and Surace provide a specific test of the hypothesis: R. H. Turner and S. H. Surace, ‘Zoot-suiters and Mexicans: Symbols in Crowd Behavior’, The American Journal of Sociology, 62 (1956) 14–20.
L. Berkowitz, Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962);
L. Berkowitz, ‘Social Motivation’, in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Volume 3, (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969);
L. Berkowitz, Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences and Control (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993).
An early study is that of La Piere: R. T. La Piere: R. T. La Piere, ‘Attitudes vs. Actions’, Social Forces, 13 (1934) 230–7.
A more technical presentation of the results is in S. G. Levy, ‘Attitudes Toward the Conduct of War’, Conflict and Peace: The Journal of Peace Psychology, 2 (1995) 179–97.
R. Clark, The Fire this Time: U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf (New York: Thunders Mouth, 1992).
L. Riefenstahl (director), Triumph of the Will (Germany, 1935);
H. Schirk (director), The Wansee Conference (Germany, 1984);
B. Trent (director), Panama Deception (North Carolina: Empowerment Project, 1992);
J. Knoop, Report from Iraq (Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies, 1991).
C. A. Kiesler, B. Collins and N. Miller, Attitude Change (New York: Wiley, 1969), pp. 191–237.
The importance of superordinate goals on reducing hostility between groups was an important outcome reported by Sherif in the Robber’s Cave studies. M. Sherif, ‘Experiments in Group Conflict’, Scientific American, 195(5) (1956) 54–8.
R. Stagner, ‘Fascist Attitudes: An Exploratory Study’, Journal of Social Psychology, 7 (1936) 309–19.
S. G. Levy, ‘An Examination of the Relationship between Systemic Punishment and Systemic Frustration’, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13 (1979) 330–2.
A. H. Barton, Communities in Disaster (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1970);
O. R. Holsti, ‘The 1914 Case’, American Political Science Review 59 (1965) 365–78; Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind.
A series of studies have related anxiety to authoritarianism or dogmatism, for example D. J. Hanson and A. M. Bush, ‘Anxiety and Dogmatism’, Psychological Reports 29 (1971) 366;
S. M. Sales, ‘Threat as a Factor in Authoritarianism: An Analysis of Archival Data’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28 (1973)44–57.
Freud’s theoretical discussion and the analysis and discussion by Shils and Janowitz based on interviews with German soldiers in World War Two who had surrendered are relevant. S. Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (New York: Bantam, 1960; originally published, 1921);
E. A. Shils and M. Janowit. Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (New York: Bantam, 1960; originally published, 1921);
E. A. Shils and M. Janowit, ‘Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 12 (1948) 280–315.
Support for this position is in M. Rejai (with K. Phillips), Leaders of Revolution (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979).
B. Bettleheim, ‘Individual and Mass Behavior in Extreme Situations’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38 (1943) 417–52.
R. Brown, Social Psychology (New York: The Free Press, 1965).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1996 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levy, S.G. (1996). Ethics in the Conduct of War. In: Holden, B. (eds) The Ethical Dimensions of Global Change. University of Reading European and International Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24538-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24538-3_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-24540-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-24538-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)