Torture and the Brain

Image via Wikipedia

Do Americans feel moral outrage about torture? Even those who say they opposed the interrogation techniques of the Bush administration — they may have believed at an intellectual level that a wrong had been committed, but were they outraged? Were they angry?

If you’re an opponent of torture, you’re probably inclined to say yes. You were — and probably still are — furious. But a new study looking at moral outrage tells a very different story. In short, while we may think that something is immoral, we don’t feel anger about it unless it affects a group we identify with, such as someone of our own nationality.

“Pursuing moral outrage: Anger at torture,” in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (PDF here; HTML here), looked at people’s responses to fictional accounts of torture (presented as actual news reports of torture), one scenario featuring a U.S. Marine being tortured by Iraqi insurgents and the other featuring a Sri Lankan soldier being tortured by Tamil rebels.

The results were stark, if not entirely unexpected given what we know about human nature. While the participants in the study (48 psychology students at the University of Kansas) rated both the torture of the U.S. Marine and the Sri Lankan soldier as morally wrong (around a 7 in both cases, on a scale from 1-9, with nine being totally immoral), the level of anger they reported in response to the two scenarios was wildly divergent. Basically, the torture of the U.S. Marine made them angry (a 4 on a scale of 1-7), while the torture of a Sri Lankan soldier was of less concern (a 2 on a scale of 1-7).

Even more surprising: The difference in the level of anger was much greater between different nationalities than it was between different goals for the torture. The U.S. Marine and the Sri Lankan soldier scenarios also each had two conditions that were tested: In one, the torturers were trying to save lives; In another, they were just trying to save property (a base with some materials but no people). So, we care more about what nationality is involved in torture more than about whether it’s intended to save lives.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that there are two very different processes occurring when it comes to people who are like us (say, Americans) or not like us (Sri Lankans, Iraqis, etc.). While we’re capable of seeing the problem with torture at an intellectual level, we’re not particularly inclined to get angry about it unless it affects one of our own.

And, therefore, what we want done about it seems to be affected as well. As the paper puts it, when we believe a moral standard has been breached, our desire is “to re-establish the standard.” When our personal anger is incited (i.e. our countrymen have been harmed), we want “to undo the harm and/or punish the harm-doer.”

It’s that last part that might interest folks who are calling for the prosecution of Bush-administration officials for torture. Put simply, the mass American public is never going to support prosecuting their own countrymen for offenses against foreigners — as a matter of human nature — even if they can be convinced that the people in question acted immorally.

Now, that’s not to say that Bush administration officials thus shouldn’t be prosecuted. Our justice system is designed to do things that are perhaps unpopular but morally necessary. Still, research like this shows why there’s no political gain to be had — and perhaps a significant political price to be paid.