Resisting Moral Disengagementin Support for War: Use of the

“Peace Test” Scale Among StudentGroups in 21 Nations

Jeannie Grussendorf, Alfred McAlister,and Patrick Sandström

Research Group on Moral Disengagement1

and IFMSA–SCORP2

Lina UddDoctoral Program, Medical Faculty

University of Helsinki and Helsinki Biomedical Graduate School

Theodore C. MorrisonDoctoral Program, School of Public Health

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Through the cognitive process of moral disengagement, people make excuses for in-flicting suffering on others while maintaining a clear conscience. The “Peace Test”scale to measure moral disengagement in support for war was tested in surveys ofmedical, university, and secondary school students in 21 nations. The scale showedacceptable reliability and was a valid predictor of opinions about specific militarythreats. Although the survey sites were not representative of nations, mean scale

PEACE AND CONFLICT: JOURNAL OF PEACE PSYCHOLOGY, 8(1), 73–83Copyright © 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Alfred McAlister, CHPPR UT-H School of PublicHealth, 7000 Fannin, Houston, TX 77030. E-mail: amcalister@mail.utexas.edu

1Theodore C. Morrison, ShaoHua Hu, Donaji Stelzig, Angela Meshack2Students with the Standing Committee on Refugees and Peace (SCORP) of the International Federa-

tion of Medical Students’ Associations (*Indicates data collected by University of Texas associates notaffiliated with SCORP.): Austria: Tadeja Urban; China*; Colombia*; Denmark: Stine Lund; Finland:Lina Udd, Anu Laulalainen; France: Philippe Ghibu; Ghana: Charles Takyi; India*; Italy: MichelaCastello; Mexico*; Netherlands: Akke van der Bij; Peru: Jaime Miranda; Poland: Violetta Rozmus; Ro-mania: Ionut Chiriac; Russia*; Slovenia: Veronika Rutar; Sweden: Henrik Petersson; Taiwan: Yu-ChenTsai (Tony Tsai); UK: Anita Sugavanam, Chris Hopkins; USA: Alex Guerrero; Yugoslavia: Filip Usidic.

scores among high school students were related to national levels of defense spend-ing. Moral disengagement is a valid tool for peace psychologists because it can helpevaluate education efforts to increase support for peace.

In almost all nations, choices between war and peace can be at least partly influencedbypublicopinion (Gaubatz,1995)andby theopinionsofelitegroupssuchas leadersin the medical profession (Carnegie Corporation, 1998). In national conflicts, the ef-fectiveness of diplomacy depends upon the “grassroots” attitudes and skills of thepeople who are experiencing that conflict (Deutsch, 1962; Devine, 1989; Harvey &Mor, 1998). The Carnegie Corporation, in its (1998) report on “Preventing DeadlyConflict,” has called for the use of public health approaches to reduce massinter-group violence, including efforts to promote “cultures of peace” within differ-ent national populations (UNESCO, 1995). This report describes work by medicalstudents in 21 nations on the development of a survey instrument to measure atti-tudes toward the acceptance of the use of armed forces. The instrument will be usedto help evaluate educational efforts to promote peaceful solutions to internationalconflicts.

Bandura (1999) has proposed a theoretical explanation of how public attitudesand opinions influence collective violence. According to Bandura, violent actionsare evoked through a process of “moral disengagement” in which the normal inhibi-tions of violence are deactivated through specific cognitive processes. Harmful ac-tions require moral justifications, i.e., the invocation of rights or necessities thatmake it acceptable to use deadly force in threatening circumstances. This process isclearly illustrated in the attitude that dishonor requires a violent response, e.g., whenviolence is seen as an obligatory response to insult or provocation (Nisbett, 1993).Moral justification isalso facilitated if it appears that someviolence isneedednowtoprevent a larger amount of anticipated violence later. Injurious actions are mademore acceptable when nonviolent options are judged to be ineffective for achievingmorally justified objectives. The moral disengagement process may involve euphe-mistic labeling (e.g., “surgical bombing” or “collateral damage”) and disregard ordistortion of consequences (e.g., when reports of military actions minimize humansuffering). Finally, moral disengagement is facilitated by blaming the victims fortheir own suffering and by portraying them as “dehumanized” enemies who are un-trustworthy and different from one’s own group. In numerous studies, these pro-cesses have been shown to influence individual aggression (Bandura, 1999).Although there has been little research on the involvement of moral disengagementin group and international aggression, preliminary studies show that it may be partlyresponsible for the degree to which individuals support the use of military forceagainst particular enemies (McAlister, 2000).

A scale, referred to as the “Peace Test,” has been developed to measure moraldisengagement in support for the use of military force to solve conflicts betweennations (McAlister, 2000). Preliminary studies have shown that the scale discrimi-

74 GRUSSENDORF ET AL.

nates between national groups and that scale scores are significant predictors ofsupport for specific military actions (McAlister, 2001). In this study, a brief ver-sion of this scale was tested in diverse student groups from 21 nations. The purposewas to test the scale with larger sample sizes and to determine (a) how the scale re-lated to support for specific military actions and (b) whether national scores wererelated to military expenditures.

RESEARCH METHODS

Measures

The scale contains ten statements designed to tap specific moral disengagementprocesses (see items in Appendix 1). Respondents indicated their degree ofagreement with each of the statements on a five-point Likert Scale: stronglyagree, somewhat agree, don’t know, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree.The score values for the ten statements are added together so that the midpoint is30 and the possible range is from 10 to 50. When calculated in this way, scoresof 30 and above can be interpreted as a sign of resistance to moral disengage-ment in support for military action. In some of the nations the survey also con-tained a series of questions in which respondents identified the nation that theyconsider to be the greatest danger to their own nation. After that question theywere asked to indicate whether they would support a military threat by their na-tion against that nation if they thought the dangerous nation might attack afriendly nation.

Participants

Student researchers affiliated with the Standing Committee on Refugees andPeace (SCORP) of the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associa-tions (IFMSA) conducted surveys of students in selected medical schools, uni-versities, and high schools in 21 nations. IFMSA meets twice yearly ingatherings of medical student leaders from around the world and SCORP mem-bers work on a variety of projects related to peace and refugees. The schoolswere selected in an effort to obtain at least generally representative studentgroups in each country, although surveys in the United States were only carriedout in Portland, Oregon (medical students) and in Austin and Houston, Texas(high school, university and medical students). In each country the questionnairewas translated into the local language and then independently back-translatedinto English, with appropriate modifications where discrepancies were detected.

RESISTING MORAL DISENGAGEMENT 75

In the selected schools, surveys were distributed by medical student research-ers or by teachers to all students or to selected groups of students between theages of 14 and 17 in their classrooms. After receiving a written and verbal ex-planation of who was conducting the survey and a request for consent to partici-pate, all students in attendance were asked to volunteer to complete the surveys,in which no individual identifiers were collected. All or most of the studentsagreed to complete the surveys in each school, but exact response rates were notcalculated. The questions about resistance to moral disengagement in support ofmilitary action were contained in a longer, self-administered questionnaire cov-ering several other topics.

Data Analysis

Data from each country were transmitted electronically or by post and assem-bled in a combined data set for analysis with SPSS (Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences). First, means and confidence intervals were calculated for gen-ders, nations, and student groups to determine how well the scale discriminatedbetween them. Next, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was calculatedfor the scale, for the whole study group, and for each national group. Then, todetermine whether the scale predicted specific opinions, the scale scores for stu-dents who did support a specific military threat were compared to those who didnot. Finally, the mean scale score for secondary school students from each na-tion was correlated with the proportion of that nation’s gross national product(GNP) that was allocated for military spending according to the Stockholm In-ternational Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

RESULTS

The mean scale scores for male and female respondents and different studentgroups within each nation and for the total sample are presented in Table 1,along with the percent GNP for military spending. (Sample sizes are presentedin Appendix 2.) Female respondents resist moral disengagement more than malerespondents and medical or university students tend to resist moral disengage-ment more than high school students. Lowest levels of resistance are found inIndia, USA, China, and Denmark. Highest levels of resistance are found in Yu-goslavia, Italy, Mexico, Sweden, and Finland. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coef-ficient values for the scale in each national group ranged from 0.82 (USA) to0.67 (China, Denmark, Yugoslavia) in all national groups except Mexico (0.55)and India (0.45).

To determine how scale scores related to support for specific military actions, thescore was calculated separately in each nation for those who did and those who didnot support a military response to a perceived enemy’s threat against a friendly na-

76 GRUSSENDORF ET AL.

tion. The results are displayed in Figure 1. In the fifteen nations where these datawere collected, t tests showed that the scale scores were significantly higher amongthose who did not support a military response than among those who did (p valuesranged from 0.001 to 0.01 in all sites except China, Mexico and Taiwan where p <0.05). Among those who support possible military threats against a specific enemy,scoresarebelow28 in13/15cases.Among thosewhodonot support specific threats,scores are above 28 in 11/15 cases.

Figure 2 shows how national mean scores for resistance to moral disengage-ment among high school students were related to the percentage of the GNP that

RESISTING MORAL DISENGAGEMENT 77

TABLE 1

Resistance to Moral Disengagement in Support for War and Percent GNP for MilitarySpending Among Genders and Student Groups

Mean Peacetest Scores (95% CI)

Nation All Males All FemalesSecondaryStudentsa

University/Other

Studentsa

MedicalStudentsa

% GNPfor

Military $

Austria 28.2 (+/-1.7)

30.7(+/- 1.3) 28.4 (+/- 1.6) 29.1 (+/- 1.6) 31.5 (+/- 2.2) .90

China 23.4 (+/- 1.1) 26.6 (+/- 1.2) 23.9 (+/-1.3) 26.0 (+/- 1.1) 1.90Colombia 25.8 (+/- 1.8) 30.3 (+/- 4.6) 28.0 (+/- 3.2)Denmark 24.7 (+/- 1.0) 25.6 (+/- 1.0) 24.8 (+/- 1.0) 25.6 (+/- 1.0) 1.70Finland 29.0 (+/- 1.1) 32.1 (+/- 0.8) 27.9 (+/- 1.0) 31.8 (+/- 1.2) 32.7 (+/- 1.0) 1.60Ghana 26.8 (+/- 3.0) 33.2 (+/- 3.7) 30.0 (+/- 2.4) .70India 21.6 (+/- 1.1) 22.0 (+/- 1.3) 21.8 (+/- 0.8) 2.10Italy 28.3 (+/-12.1) 34.6 (+/- 4.2) 31.4 (+/- 3.8)Malta 25.2 (+/- 1.0) 27.3 (+/- 0.9) 26.8 (+/- 0.9) 24.7 (+/- 1.5) 26.9 (+/- 1.3) .90Mexico 29.0 (+/- 1.1) 32.3 (+/- 1.0) 30.6 (+/- 0.7) .60Netherlands 26.5 (+/- 1.3) 30.1 (+/- 0.9) 25.8 (+/- 1.0) 30.2 (+/- 1.1) 30.7 (+/- 2.3) 1.90Peru 28.1 (+/- 1.3) 28.5 (+/- 1.5) 29.3 (+/- 1.4) 27.7 (+/- 1.4) 1.40Poland 26.1 (+/- 2.5) 33.2 (+/- 2.4) 29.6 (+/- 1.9) 2.10Romania 26.6 (+/- 1.4) 27.0 (+/- 0.7) 24.0 (+/- 0.8) 28.6 (+/- 0.9) 2.10Russia 26.1 (+/- 1.2) 27.3 (+/- 1.4) 25.0 (+/- 1.6) 27.7 (+/- 1.1) 3.80Slovenia 29.7 (+/- 1.2) 31.0 (+/- 0.8) 27.4 (+/- 1.0) 31.7 (+/- 1.0) 33.2 (+/- 1.4) 1.70Sweden 28.8 (+/- 0.8) 32.4 (+/- 0.7) 28.8 (+/- 0.6) 33.9 (+/- 0.9) 2.10Taiwan 24.9 (+/- 0.8) 28.0 (+/- 1.0) 25.7 (+/- 0.8) 26.8 (+/- 1.2) 28.2(+/- 1.6) 3.50U.K. 27.1 (+/- 0.8) 30.5 (+/- 0.7) 29.5 (+/- 0.7) 27.5(+/- 1.2) 26.6(+/- 2.5) 2.80U.S.A. 23.9 (+/- 1.5) 25.9 (+/- 1.1) 23.8 (+/- 1.3) 24.5(+/- 1.6) 28.3(+/- 2.1) 3.40Yugoslavia 32.5 (+/- 3.1) 34.6 (+/- 2.0) 33.6(+/- 1.6)Total 26.7 (+/- 0.3) 29.6 (+/- 0.3) 27.8 (+/- 0.3) 27.4(+/- 0.4) 29.4(+/- 0.4)

Note. CI = Confidence interval.aMeans shown for student groups are the average of the means for males and females.

78

FIGURE 1 Peace Test scores among students who do or do not support threatening a militaryresponse to a possible enemy attack on a friendly nation.

FIGURE 2 Mean Peace Test scores among high school students andpercent of national GNP for military spending. Correlation = –57. *p < .05.

is devoted to military spending. The correlation is statistically significant (p <0.05 for one-tailed test). The highest spending and the lowest resistance to moraldisengagement is in Russia, Taiwan and the USA. The highest resistance andlowest military spending is in Mexico.

DISCUSSION

This study has found that the peace test survey can detect significant differences inattitudes toward war in student groups from different countries and that these dif-ferences are related to levels of defense spending in the respondents’ respectivecountries. Low peace test scores indicate a low level of resistance to moral disen-gagement processes. This is further supported by the survey findings relating lowtest scores to high support for military intervention against a perceived enemy. Thesurvey indicates that mechanisms of moral disengagement are significant predic-tors for support for violence. In order to address levels of violence generally andspecifically as they relate to military intervention, these results can be used to helpyoung people understand and resist the process of moral disengagement.

However, there are some limitations to this study. First, demand characteristicsmay have caused many respondents to give desired answers. Second, because thestudent surveys are not necessarily representative of national groups, our findingscan only be considered preliminary. A further limitation of this study is that thewide variation in reliabilities may be problematic. Future studies should examinewhether there are negative correlations between items for some groups andwhether there are language and/or cultural differences in the interpretations of theitems.

Despite the previously mentioned limitations, results from this study are con-sistent with previous research using the Peace Test. In a study designed to validatethe scale through comparisons among known groups, high levels of resistancewere found among student leaders with the International Federation of MedicalStudents’ Associations and very high scores were found among the members oftheir Standing Committee on Refugees and Peace. (The study was conducted dur-ing an international meeting in August 2000.)

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to conclusively determine whether moral disengage-ment influences public opinion in ways that support military spending and ag-gressive military policies. If moral disengagement influences popular support forthe use of violent force to settle conflicts between groups and nations, it may bepossible to reduce the degree to which violence is supported in particular situa-

RESISTING MORAL DISENGAGEMENT 79

tions by helping young people learn to resist arguments that advocate the use offorce by invoking processes of moral disengagement. One method for helpingpeople learn to resist persuasion is known as “psychological inoculation”(McAlister, et al., 1979; McGuire, 1964). The idea is to expose people to argu-ments that they might hear to prepare them to refute or resist such argumentsmore effectively. This technique has been used (e.g., Vartiainen, et al., 1998) tohelp prevent young people from beginning to smoke by exposing them to peerpressure toward smoking in controlled role plays where they are encouraged toresist in response to various kinds of offers or pressures to smoke. Psychologicalinoculation may also be useful in helping young people learn to resist argumentsfor moral disengagement in support for group or international violence. Re-search in Texas has shown that education to increase awareness of and resis-tance to moral disengagement processes can influence both opinions andpolitical behaviors in support of peaceful solutions to international conflicts(McAlister, 2001). By helping young people understand and resist moral disen-gagement, it may be possible to “inoculate” them against “war fever” and otherforms of mass violence.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Jeannie Grussendorf received her Ph.D in Peace Studies from the University ofBradford, UK, in 1998. She is currently project director for the Students forPeace research project into moral disengagement at the University of TexasHouston School of Public Health.

Alfred McAlister received his Ph.D. in Applied Behavioral Sciences fromStanford University in 1976. He has been involved in many studies of interna-tional health promotion and communication for behavior change. McAlister isthe author of Juvenile Violence in the Americas, published by the Pan AmericanHealth Organization in 1998.

Patrick Sandström received his M.D. from Helsinki University in 2000. He iscurrently working in epidemiological research at the National Public Health Insti-tute in Helsinki. Sandström is the Executive Director of Physicians for Social Re-sponsibility in Finland.

Lina Udd is currently at the medical faculty of the University of Helsinki and inthe Helsinki Biomedical Graduate School.

Theodore C. Morrison received his M.P.H. in Health Promotion from SanDiego State University, Graduate School of Public Health in 1996. He is currentlya doctoral candidate for his Ph.D. in Health Education and Health Promotion at theUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Public Health, and is a researchassociate for the Students for Peace research project into moral disengagement atthe University of Texas Houston School of Public Health.

80 GRUSSENDORF ET AL.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 3, 193–209.

Carnegie Corporation. (1998). Preventing deadly conflict: Final report. New York: Carnegie Corpora-tion.

Deutsch, M. (1962). Psychological alternatives to war. Journal of Social Issues, 18(2). 97–119.Devine, P.H. (1989). When peacekeeping does not lead to peace: Some notes on conflict-resolution.

Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 18, 47–53.Gaubatz, K. T. (1995). Crime in the public mind. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Harvey, F.P., & Mor, B.D. (1998). Conflict in world politics: Advances in the study of crisis, war and

peace. New York: St. Martin’s Press.McAlister, A. (2000). Moral disengagement and support for military action. International Journal of

Public Opinion Research, 2, 191–198.McAlister, A. (2001). Moral disengagement: Measurement and modification. Journal of Peace Re-

search, 38(1), 87–99.McAlister, A., Perry, C., & Maccoby, N. (1979). Adolescent smoking: Onset and prevention. Pediat-

rics, 63, 650–658.McGuire, W. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 191–229). New York: Ac-ademic Press.

Nisbett, R.E. (1993). Violence and U.S. regional culture. American Psychologist, 48, 441–449.UNESCO (1995). A culture of peace and nonviolence within educational institutions: Elements for the

launching of an inter-regional project. New York: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organization.

Vartiainen, E., Paavola, M., McAlister, A., & Puska, P. (1998). Fifteen year follow-up of smoking pre-vention effects in the North Karelia youth project. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 81–85.

RESISTING MORAL DISENGAGEMENT 81

APPENDIX 1

82 GRUSSENDORF ET AL.

APPENDIX 2

RESISTING MORAL DISENGAGEMENT 83

Sample Sizes for Table 1

Sample Size

Nation All Males All FemalesSecondaryStudents

University/OtherStudents

MedicalStudents

Austria 64 78 66 34 42China 127 78 — 100 105Colombia 27 64 — — 91Denmark 126 110 115 121 —Finland 150 273 149 102 172Ghana 30 21 — — 51India 71 75 — — 146Italy 4 17 — — 21Malta 188 194 172 104 106Mexico 124 155 279 — —Netherlands 128 185 127 135 51Peru 98 72 — 87 83Poland 27 31 — — 58Romania 147 349 — 198 298Russia 94 60 57 97 —Slovenia 182 312 196 199 99Sweden 330 360 440 250 —Taiwan 301 216 264 162 91U.K. 269 295 379 145 40U.S.A. 112 121 109 69 55Yugoslavia 25 51 — — 76Total 2,624 3,117 2,353 1,553 1,835

Don’t appear so scholarly, pray. Humanize your talk,and speak to be understood. Do you think a Greekname gives more weight to your reasons?

Molière, 1673