Skip to main content

Hayes, Niccolls, Masuda, & Rye, 2002

APA Citation

Hayes, S. C., Niccolls, R., Masuda, A., & Rye, A. K. (2002). Prejudice, terrorism, and behavior therapy. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 9, 296-301.

Publication Topic
ACT: Conceptual
Behavior Analysis: Conceptual
Publication Type
Article
Language
English
Keyword(s)
behavior therapy, evaluative categories, cultures, Relational Frame Theory, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
Abstract

Behavior therapy is relevant not just to the means of victims of terrorism, but also to the understanding and modification of psycholgical processes that lead to the perpetration of terrorist acts. A key process of this kind is prejudice. In this paper, human prejudice is defined as the objectification and dehumanization of people as a result of their participation in evaluative verbal categories. Prejudice is difficult to deal with because a) the same verbal processes that give rise to prejudice are massively reinforced in dealing with the external environment; b) virtually all cultures openly amplify this process with stigmatized groups; c) humans are historical beings and verbal/cognitive networks once formed tend to maintain themselves; and d) many of the things humans do to change or eliminate undesirable verbal categorical processes are either inert or prone to making these processes more resistant to change. Mindfulness, cognitive defusion, acceptance, and valued action are suggested as alternative methods of fighting the war behavior therapy need to help human society win: not just a war on terrorism, but a war on prejudice.

Comments
This paper defines human prejudice as “the objectification and dehumanization of people as a result of their participation in evaluative verbal categories.” They discuss the difficulties in reducing prejudice due to the characteristics of normal language such as how this verbal process is reinforced in other areas such as problems solving, it is strengthened by culture and these relational networks tend to be self-maintaining. In addition, learning is additive not subtractive so that many of the commonly applied techniques for dealing with prejudice attitudes are ineffective or iatrogenic. The paper ends by suggesting interventions that target the context rather than the content of prejudice attitudes.