Normalization of the Democidal Mindset: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Endorsement and Perceived Acceptability

Abstract

Both scholars and practitioners frequently stress the significant role played by high-level perpetrators in cases of mass killing. Often overlooked however is that the thinking and behavior of these leaders are often constrained (or liberated) by what is considered to be acceptable or unacceptable in the cultural environment they are in. What the larger public considers to be normative will shape what policies leaders endorse and what actions they take. The dissertation examines the extent to which particular thinking patterns—those adopted by high-level perpetrators of democide—are normalized in general populations. Using cross-cultural data from the United States, India, and South Africa, this study measures the levels of individual endorsement of democidal statements, as well as the perceived acceptability of democidal statements. A primary objective of this study is to determine if this newly developed acceptability scale has promise as a better and more consistent way (as compared to the individual endorsement scale) of measuring exclusionary content at the societal level. Findings suggest that while an individual’s endorsement of democidal items is a better predictor for intended behavior on related issues, the acceptability scale is potentially a more novel and reliable measure to use across different cultures. Evidence of pluralistic ignorance taking place is also addressed. Understanding how these beliefs are represented in general populations may inform us of the political landscape that government leaders (current and/or aspiring) are operating in, which in turn may illustrate a population’s susceptibility to mass violence. This research could provide insights for eventual norm-based interventions that could decrease exclusionary thinking and collective violence.