Are Moral Disengagement, Neutralization Techniques, and Self-Serving Cognitive Distortions the Same? Developing a Unified Scale of Moral Neutralization of Aggression

149 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitudes (2017, unknown): “…theories predict that support for violent extremism is higher when actors morally disengage from ethical standards that prohibit violence or when they legally disengage from the obligation to comply with the law (Bandura 1986; Ribeaud and Eisner 2010; Nivette et al. 2015; Rattner and Yagil 2004).”
Conspiracy Beliefs and Violent Extremist Intentions: The Contingent Effects of Self-efficacy, Self-control and Law-related Morality (2020, background): “Within criminology such mechanisms, including neutralization processes and cognitive distortions, are widely accepted constructs for explaining the use and justification of violence.(81) In particular, moral and legal neutralization are the most commonly identified mechanisms.”
A Model of Neutralization Techniques (2018, result): “Neutralizations and rationalizations are also broadly congruent with some other concepts whose vocabularies are used to bridge the gap between norm and behavior (Ribeaud and Eisner 2010).”