Allen R. Miller, PhD, MBA
When violent conflict erupts, it is natural for the public to react strongly. People who bear witness feel a range of emotions, including anger, sorrow, disgust, horror, fear, and grief.
Violence is not new. Throughout history, violence has been a common way to resolve differences among individuals, groups, and nations. Nations have conquered nations, rival groups have fought for supremacy, and intimate partners have controlled one another with threats and actions. Imposing one’s will on others can force immediate compliance, but the long-term consequences are often resentment, distrust, and hate.
The aggressors typically claim a right to take action, with all-encompassing and far-reaching consequences. Bystanders, allies, friends, and foes alike ponder the wisdom of violence and question the morality, and aggressors are often conflicted about their “winnings.”
Whenever violence is committed, many people wonder, “Why did they do it? What caused it? What do they hope to get out of it?”
The Cognitive Model of Violence
In 1999, Aaron T. Beck, MD, published Prisoners of Hate, giving us a way to understand why people use violence as a means to an end. The cognitive formulation of violence not only helps us understand why individuals and groups resort to violence, but also can help us respond to subsequent questions about how violence can be avoided, and how individuals and groups can reconcile after violence has occurred.
According to the cognitive model of violence, there are often preceding events and feelings that individuals and groups use to justify hostile behavior toward others. In the beginning, individuals or groups have a sense of autonomy—that they have the right to live their lives the way they see fit, without interference from others. When an individual or group encroaches on their property, possessions, or relationships, the offended individuals recognize the intrusion and label it as a form of disrespect or threat. Anger results when individuals perceive that an individual or group has done something they shouldn’t have done.
Feeling anger alone does not lead to hostility and violence. The degree to which the offended person believes there is a threat to their physical wellbeing often dictates whether they choose to become aggressive toward others. When one person believes that they are vulnerable and may lose their autonomy, bodily or emotional well-being, possessions, way of life, etc., they will be more prone to react violently.
In complex dealings between nations, religious groups, or political factions, there is often a long history of conflict and disagreement about who violated the other’s autonomy first, who is entitled to what, and when self-defense is justified. Prevention and reconciliation in long-standing conflicts are much greater challenges.
A Simple Scenario
In our everyday lives, situations arise that can easily be interpreted as hostile acts. Some actions are indeed hostile in nature, while in other situations, we may conclude after thorough evaluation that the other person does not pose a threat, or that any harm caused was not intentional. In these scenarios, a buildup of anger can be mitigated.
Imagine you are driving on the highway and suddenly another driver swerves in front of you and cuts you off. You immediately think the act was intentional, and that the other driver was only thinking about themselves, trying to get ahead, and didn’t care if they scared you or even caused an accident. You have the thought: “They are being selfish, inconsiderate, and dangerous, and they should not do that.” You may then engage in one or more of the following behaviors: stepping on the accelerator, riding the other driver’s bumper, yelling obscenities, or making hand gestures toward them. Your behavioral reaction could cause the situation to escalate. The other driver may retaliate by slamming on the brakes, yelling obscenities back at you, or signaling you to pull over to settle your differences with physical violence.
On the other hand, if you learned that the other driver was trying to calm a crying child, or avoid a pothole on the road, you likely would have a different reaction. You may still be upset about what happened, but you would be less likely to interpret the other driver’s action as a selfish or inconsiderate act. You might not like what they did, but as opposed to feeling angry or hostile, you may instead feel grateful that no one was hurt. You might behave by shaking the experience off and continuing to safely drive to your destination.
Conflict in Interpersonal Relationships
Let’s consider a more complex and high-risk situation. Michael and Angela have been dating for several months and have expressed their commitment to one another. They have decided to live together. Although Angela has been firm in her commitment to Michael, he knows she has had prior relationships, and he has trouble believing in her fidelity to him. He was in another relationship that ended when his partner started dating someone else. He really loves Angela but is suspicious of her intentions. When she looks at or talks to other men, he feels the pain of his previous loss and wants to do anything necessary to avoid feeling the pain of betrayal. He behaves by becoming increasingly vigilant of Angela’s activities, and tries to control where she goes and whom she sees. When he sees a text on her phone from a male colleague, he yells at Angela, and sends an aggressive and threatening text back to the colleague.
When Angela affirms her love and commitment for Michael, he is not convinced that he is not vulnerable. He still believes that he will lose Angela, just as he lost his previous partner. A longer process of understanding the ways in which he is interpreting Angela’s behavior, evaluating his beliefs about her behavior, learning to tolerate uncertainty, and learning to trust her over time will be necessary to allow them to have a stable, trusting relationship. Unfortunately, Michael’s behavior causes Angela considerable suffering, and in and of itself gives her cause to leave. This self-fulfilling prophesy is likely to strengthen Michael’s maladaptive beliefs about relationships and will likely maintain behaviors such as hypervigilance, being controlling, and aggression in the future.
Understanding Conflict Between Larger Groups
Among the most complex scenarios is one where two geopolitical or religious groups have a history of strained relations where there are legitimate reasons why they distrust one another and each has misinterpreted the other’s behavior. One or both may have concluded that their needs are incompatible, or one may have concluded that the other poses an imminent threat to their sovereignty. They may disagree about which group struck first and what serves as an appropriate response. Such situations may lead to continuous cross-border strikes or to an all-out invasion by one of the groups. There are many things to unravel here.
In the end, each group may need to answer the questions, “What do we want?” and “What can we live with?” They will also need to accept what has happened as history and that there is fault on both sides. They will both need to decide that more than retribution or supremacy, they want peace.
Reconciliation starts once each group has answered the question, “What can we live with?” If there is no movement between what they want and what they can accept, there will be no end to the conflict. As long as one believes that the other poses a threat to its sovereignty and autonomy, the fighting will continue.
There is an old saying that “when there is a misbehaving child, there is a supportive grandparent.” When two groups continue to battle, they may receive support from other nations. Through the conflict, the wishes of other factions play out. Other nations may need to intervene with a statement that they no longer support the conflict and want resolution. Establishing terms for ending hostilities usually takes a concerted international effort with formal agreements.
If and when violence ends, civilians in war-torn places attempt to rebuild their lives and deal with issues of displacement, lost property, lost lives of family and friends, loss of employment, and loss of their old way of life. They struggle with lack of physical wellbeing, including illness and injury as well as loss of physical safety, lack of access to food and clean water, and comprehensive medical care. All of these factors, combined with lack of routine, reduced social connections, and changes to their environments contribute to psychological and emotional scars that can last for years, and be passed down through generations. Civilians are likely to feel anger and resentment toward the other nation, long after the conflict is formally resolved. We may see politicians capitalize on public feelings of anger to increase their popularity or power. Anger and resentment can feed future conflicts, maintaining the seemingly endless cycle of war.
Hope for the Future
Despite the constant stream of violence we see in the media, many studies have shown that human beings are inherently empathetic and benevolent. Some work may need to be done to help various factions develop empathy for other groups following a conflict. We can begin with ourselves. Dr. Beck suggests asking the following questions as we consider any hostility we may harbor toward other groups, nations, or factions:
- “Is it possible that I have misconstrued the apparently offensive behavior of another person (or group)?
- Are my interpretations based on real evidence or on my preconceptions?
- Are there alternative explanations?
- Am I distorting my image of the other person or group because of my own vulnerabilities or fears?” (Beck, 1999)
As clinicians, we can help our clients consider their responses to the same questions when appropriate. On the other hand, when a group has correctly inferred the intentions of the other group and does not hold a distorted image, they will need to review their options and do problem solving to determine their best response.
Finally, we can learn how to work effectively with individuals who have been impacted by conflict. At Beck Institute, our nonprofit mission is to improve lives worldwide through excellence and innovation in Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Recovery-Oriented Cognitive Therapy. We strive to make the evidence-based tools of CBT and CT-R available to clinicians and other helping professionals who work with individuals who are suffering worldwide. If you are working with individuals who have been impacted by conflict, our free webinar CBT for Victims of War is a good place to begin learning how to effectively help your clients reimagine their lives after an attack, identify their strengths and resources, and begin the process of rebuilding in their new reality.
References:
Beck, A. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and violence. HarperCollins.