hayes - terrorism, prejudice and behavior therapy

7/25/2019 Hayes - Terrorism, prejudice and behavior therapy

1/6

2 9 6

P r e j u d i c e T e r ro r is m a n d B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y

Steven C. Hayes, Revi l le Niccol ls , Akihiko Masuda , and Alyssa K. Rye, U n i v er s i t~ o f N e v a d a

Behav ior therapy is re levant no t us t to the needs o f v ic t ims o f terrorism, bu t a lso to the unders tandin g a nd modi f ica t ion o f psycholog-

ical tnvcesses that lead to the perpetration of terrorist acts. A key process of this kind is prejudice. In this pa p ~ hu m an prejudice is de-

f ine d as the ob jecti f ica t ion and dehum aniza t io n o f people as a resu lt o f the ir part ic ipa t ion in e va lua t ive verbal ca tegories . Prejudice

is d i f f icu l t to dea l w i th because (a ) the same verbal processes that g ive rise to prejudice are m assively reinforced in dea ling w ith the ex-

tern al environm ent; (b) virtuaUy a ll cultures openly amplify this process with stigmatized groups; (e) hu m an s are historical beings

and verbal /cogni t ive networks once form ed tend to ma in ta in themselves; and (d) man y o f the th ings hu ma ns do to change or e l imi-

nate undesirable verbal categorical processes are either inert or pron e to ma kin g these processes mor e resistant to change. M ind fuln ess ,

cogni t ive defusion , acceptance , a nd va lued act ion are suggested as a l terna t ive methods o f igh t ing the war behavior therapy needs to

help hum an socie ty win: no t jus t a wa r on terrorism, bu t a war on prejud ice.

~EPTEMBER 11 is clearly a phrase th at will echo

down through the 21st century. The events it has

launched are still in play, and we do not yet have the

sense of perspective that time alone will provide, b ut it is

obvious that September 11 will have lasting mea nin g in

many spheres and to many disciplines. It will specify a

constellation of forces and events that are geopolitical,

sociological, economic , religious, military, historical, and

cultural. And , yes, psychological.

Other papers in this series will focus on what behavior

therapists know about how to help the victims of such

horr ible violence. Those aspects are clearly psychological,

and they are importan t. But the psychological dimens ion

applies as well to the perpetrators. How is it that people

can prepare for months, or even years, to learn to fly (but

not to land) a commer cial airliner, to take a plan e by vio-

lence, and then kill themselves, everyone on that plane,

and thousands more by flying into the side of a huge, oc-

cupied office building? These are actions of whole hum an

beings, with histories, motives, thoughts, and feelings.

These are psychological actions.

Behavioral scientists need to unders tand such even ts--

what they are, how to prevent them, and how to change

these destructive behavioral processes once they begin.

In an era of D S M hegemony, perhaps this will seem too

bold to some empirical clinicians. It might he easy to say

this is not ou r job. After all, there is no terrorism dis-

order in our diagnostic nosology. The re are no TD

clinics. No one is com ing in to our clinics asking for treat-

men t for TD.

C o g n i t i v e a n d B e h a vi o r a l P r a c ti c e 9 2 9 6 - 3 0 1 2 0 0 2

1077-7229/02/296-30151.00/0

Copyright 2002 by Association for Adv ancemen t of Behavior

Therapy. All rights of re produ ction in any form reserved.

['~ C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n Q u i z l o c a t e d o n p . 3 2 8 .

Behavior therapists cannot duck this task so easily,

however. Behavior therapy is a branch of the behavioral

sciences that uses the principles of huma n action, cogni-

tion, and emotion to understand and change psychologi-

cal events for the better. Naturally, historians, political sci-

entists, military experts, and so on will have a great deal

to say about the perpetr ators at their p articular level of

analysis, but these levels are not the ps ychological levels.

If behavior therapy has no thin g to say at that level about

such important behavioral events as these, then our entire

field is much less relevant to hum an affairs than we claim.

The barrier to cons idering the psychology of perpetra-

tors is not merely professional, howev er- -it is also deeply

personal. When first faced with the events of September

11, people had a hard time facing what had hap pened .

Some of the most common phrases heard in casual dis-

course in those first few days were, I can't believe it or

This is insane. The actual sight of a commerc ial airliner

flying into a skyscraper was beyon d com preh ensio n, an d

the event was made even more incom prehe nsib le when

one realized that the plane was being piloted by a huma n

being who trained to kill himself and thousands of inno-

cents. It was as if the entire citizenry fo und comfo rt in the

idea that this was an event that could no t be u nders tood

and had nothing to do with normal human beings. Most

especially, i t had nothing to do with that human being

one sees every morn ing in the mirror.

Our politicians have since actively supported this pro-

cess of rejection of personal relevance. The political dis-

course has progressed from describing these horrible acts

as bei ng evil, which they surely are, to the evildoers,

which clearly applies as well, and finally to the evil ones.

By the time we get there, the perpetrators have nothing

to do with us. They are in a different category, more like

monsters than human beings, doing incoherent , mon-

strous, evil things because.., well, because they are evil.


2/6

Prejudice Terrorism and Behavior Therapy 297

Behavior therapists cann ot accept this sleight of hand.

It is a truism of behavioral psychology that abnor mal be-

havior is on a co nti nuu m with norm al behavior. If it is de-

ceptive to label abnormal behavior and then reify that

label into a cause, the n it is jus t as deceptive to explai n

acts of terrorism by an appeal to human evil.

T h e C h i l l o f R e c o g n i t i o n

While the violent outcome revealed on Septem ber 11

is repulsive and extreme, the behavioral processes that

created this outcome seem to be available to every one of

us. We can see parallels of these processes every day in the

clinic, but more than that, we can see them every day in

our o wn thou ghts if we are but willing to listen. Osam a

Bin Laden has given dozens of interviews explaining his

views and actions. One has only to listen carefully and

openly to his statements to feel the chill of recognition.

What we see if we listen is a hum an being e ntang led in

cognitive categories and evaluations, and compelled to

attack others in ord er to maint ain consistency with these

categories and evaluatio ns. The categorical and evalua-

tive labels flow like water from a spring. In his tapes, Bin

Laden says, Unde r no circumstances should we forget

this enmity between us and the infidels . . . we must be

loyal to the believers . . . We should r eno unc e the atheists

and infidels. He terms the Septem ber 11 attack a

blessed attack against the global infidels and says We

ask Allah to make him [Taliban leader Mullah Moham-

med Omar] victorious over the forces of infidels and tyr-

anny, and to crush the new Christian-Jewish crusade

(ht tp: / /www.adl .org/ terrorism_america/bin_l .asp) .

What we see, in a word, is prejudice. It is cast in the

language of God and religion, but the fruits of Bin

Laden's thoughts are not those of faith. The fruits are not

love, vitality, transcendence, peace, or harmony. The

fruits are hate, and violence, and the deh umani zatio n of

others. The fruits are the fruits of prejudice.

The d ictiona ry defines preju dice as a feeling, favor-

able or unfavorable, towards any person or thing, prior to

or not based on actual experience (Oxford English Dic-

tionary, 1984, p. 1275). Prejudice in that sense is built

into all learning. A small dog who barks at men because

of prior mistrea tment at the hands of a harsh male mas-

ter is prejudiced , in the dictionary sense, becaus e the

dog's negative arousal does no t come from actual experi-

ence with the targets of his barking. But prejudice is so

greatly exacerbated by human language and cognition,

that i t hardly seems worth noti ng until those hu ma n pro-

cesses are involved.

The usual view of prejudice seems to be that we are

born without prejudice, and it is only a sick culture that

somehow pours prejudice into us. Often the West, or

America, or capitalism, or class divisions, or s ome o ther

cultural force is bla med for the illness. One has only to see

innocent chi ldren playing together to understand how

that idea cou ld be so widely believed, but the data suggest

that it is largely false. Prejudice, we would argue, is built

into h uma n beings because it is built into languag e itself.

The core of hu ma n language is the abili ty to derive re-

lations amon g events based on arbitrary cues rather than

formal properties of the related events, a position known

as Relational Frame Th eor y (RFT; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &

Roche, 2001). For example, a normal human adult who

arbitrarily learns th at x goes with 3 also no w knows with-

out explicit training that y goes with x. Relations among

events are bidirectional (thoug h often not symmetrical).

These bidirectiona l relations in turn combi ne into net-

works of relations. A normal human adult who learns

that q goes with y and that p goes with y will derive that q

goes with p and that p goes with q. Derived relations of

this kind are relatively primitive behaviors, evident even

with you ng hu ma n infan ts (Lipkens, Hayes, & Hayes, 1993).

They are centra l to how humans use words-- i f a round

object is a ball , then a ball is that rou nd ob je ct -- an d

a variety of studies suggest that human language is de-

pendent on these processes (see Hayes et al., 2001, for a

review).

With derived stimulus relations comes a greatly in-

creased ability to acqui re fu nctio ns indirectly. A child can

be told a bout the attributes of verbal categories without

having to experience all of these features firsthand. Ver-

bal categorization and attribution is such a powerfully

useful process that it is very difficult to slow down, an d vir-

tually impossible to stop. Fur thermor e, because it can be

cont roll ed by arbitrary cues, it goes on with very little en-

vironmental support .

The power of this process can be shown in a short

demonstra t ion described in our book on language and

cognition (Hayes et al., 2001). Start by picking three

single-digit numb ers (you can repeat numb ers). Write them

down in ran dom order. Now answer the following ques-

tion, using the first nu mb er to pick the word in the first

column, the second number to pick the word in the sec-

ond column, and the thi rd nu mbe r to pick the word in

the third column.

How is a. . .

(e.g., b a n a n a (e.g., more than a (e.g., candle?

h ba na na h like h prostitute?

2. race car 2. unl ike 2. war?

3. kang aroo 3. bette r tha n 3. chair?

4. for ema n 4. differ ent from 4. candle?

5. priest 5. worse tha n a 5. hous e plant?

6. football 6. the father of 6. book?

7. hat 7. the cause of 7. mu d hole?

8. com pu ter 8. the par tne r of 8. baby?

9. TV 9. the opposit e of 9. garbage disposer?


3/6

2 9 8 H a y e s e t a l

Now attempt to answer the question you have created.

Gene rate as man y answers as you can. Be prep are d to jus-

tify each answer. (Th e pr esen t article will be mo re unde r-

standable if you actually do this exercise before reading on.)

It is unlikely that any of these ques tions have ever bee n

asked of the reader before. Yet with some thought, every

questio n can be answered. As verbally comp eten t hu-

mans begin to gen erate answers, they will usually be able to

justify them, s upposedly on the basis of the formal proper-

ties of the related events. A perso n answerin g the question,

How- is a TV the oppos ite of a garbag e disposer? may have

said the TV brings garbage into the house, while the dis-

pose r takes it away. The physical truth of that answer

once it is given may make it appear that the relation was

not arbitrary at all. Formal properties cannot explain the

ability to answer all 729 questions, however, even though

physical proper ties will be a ppe aled to in virtually every an-

swer. These nou ns an d relations were selected randomly. It

is simply not possible that the world is so arranged that ev-

ery object in the world is in fact (i.e., nonarbitrarily) re-

lated to every other object in the world in every possible

way. Rather, this exercise shows that verbally comp et en t

hum ans can categorize, evaluate, and co mpare arbitrarily,

but that they lear n to justify these relations based o n the

verbally abstracted nonar bitra ry features of related events.

The implications for huma n prejudice are profound.

As we apply hu man categorical/attributive/evaluative pro-

cesses to other hu ma n be ings, we begi n to justify these re-

lations by an appeal to various features. In so doing, we

begin to ignore the dynamic, historical, contextual, de-

velopmenta l aspects of an individual hum an being in fa-

vor of evaluated attributes and collective categories more

suited to objects than to hm nan s. The evaluative verbal

categories that are applied to groups of people tend to be

generalizations, with features that extend far beyond the

direct experience with any given indMdual. The more

one reacts to others on the basis of evaluative verbal cate-

gories, the more one risks losing contact with their

unique human qualit ies. In other words, human beings

who are the tbcns of categorization and evaluation are

dehu mani zed a nd objectified by that process.

This po int shows the psychological limitation s of blam-

ing prejudice on a sick cuhure. It is true that categorical,

attributive, and comparative processes are harnessed by

the culture to prod uce com mon sets of attributes and ste-

reotypes of various stigmatized groups, and it is true that

some cultures engage in this process with more vigor

than others. Even if the cultu re was not involved in the

use of pr ejudicia l terms, however, we would quickly rein-

vent other ones. A person is not just a person, a person is

also fat, wrinkled, ugly, stupid, or any of a myriad s uch la-

bels. Because these events are ar bitrarily applicable, the

cues that control them can become more and more sub-

tle. A par ent with a teen ager will be shoc ked in to reme m-

brance of how subtle the cues are that differentiate some-

one who is cool from s ome one who is a nerd. With adults,

this same process can lead to more serious consequences.

In Northern Ireland it can be a l ife-and-death matter

whether a city is called Londonderry or Belfast, because

these serve as cues for supposedly important verbal cate-

gories, such as Catholic or Protestant. In Afghanistan,

it was a life-and-death matter whether you grew your bea rd

long if you were a ma n, or whet her you covered your

face if you were a woman, b ecause these small features

supposedly distinguished believers from infidels.

The core of hum an prejudice is the objectification and de

hum ani za t ion o f hum an be ings because o f t hei r par t i c ipa tion in

verbal evalu at ive categories. Prejudice, defined this way, is a

kind of cognitive entangl emen t. We usually use the term

when the categorical terms have negative evaluative con-

notations, but a m om en t of reflection shows that this is not

a def ining feature. Seemingly positive categories, such as

hot or babe, can be as deh uma niz ing as negative ones.

Prejudice, defined this way, is both shockingly com-

mo n and shockingly difficult to deal with. Prejudi ce is dif-

ficult to deal with because:

1. The sam e verbal processes are massively reinforced in deal

ing wi th t he ex t erna l env i ronmen t . In our RFT account of

language and cognition (Hayes et al . , 2001), h uma n rea-

soning and probl em solving are argued to depen d up on

the same relational frames as seem to be involved in hu man

prejudice. In deed, within the field of prejudi ce itself there

is evidence that stereotypes have positive effects in re-

ducing the burd en of problem solving and unders tand-

ing a complex social envi ro nme nt (e.g., Macrae, Milne, &

Bodenhausen, 1994).

2. Virtually all cultures openly amplify this process wit h stig

matized groups. Cultural practices exist in the present day

on the basis of their past ability to be passed on within

groups, much in the same way that genes exist based on

their impact on survival. The creat ion of in-groups that

will protect cultural practices is almost universal within

cultures for that reason. Categorization and stereotyping

help rationalize and justify the existence of an in-grou p

to which one belongs (e.g., Hewstone,Jaspars, & Lalljee,

1982; Spears & Manstead, 1989), as well as the in-gr oup's

treatment of those in the out-group (Tajfel, 1982). Even

when groups are formed randomly, human s will act to try

to benef it the gr oups to which they belo ng (Tajfel, Billig,

Bundy, & Flament, 1971), in part because there are im-

portant consequences a t tached to group membership

(Gaertner & Insko, 2000). This same process applies

whether the categorical unit involved is called a tribe, a

religion, or a class. For example, the m ore religious people

consider themselves to be, the more negative their attitudes

are toward nonreligio us others (Jackson & Hunsberger,

1999), despite the many religious precepts that teach the

opposite.


4/6

P r e j u d i c e T e r r o r is m a n d B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y 2 9 9

3. We are historical beings and verbal~cognitive networks

once ormed tend to maintain themselves.

W h e n n e w n et w o r k s

o f v e r b a l r e l a ti o n s a r e f o r m e d i t is e as y to s h o w t h a t o l d

w a y s o f t h i n k i n g w i ll q u i c k l y r e e m e r g e i f t h e n e w w a y s o f

t h i n k i n g a r e n o t c o n s t a n t l y s u c c e s s f u l ( e . g ., R e h f e l d t &

H a y e s , 20 0 0 ; W i l s o n & H a y e s , 1 9 9 6 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , n e w

r e l a t i o n s a r e r e s i s t e d i f t h e n e w m a t e r i a l c o n f l i c t s w i t h

o l d e r s t e r e o t y p e s ( M o x o n , K e e n a n , & H i n e , 1 99 3; W a t t,

K e e n a n , B a r n e s , & C a i r n s , 1 9 91 ) , a s c o m p a r e d t o s i m i l a r

l e a r n i n g t h a t a p p e a r s t o b e n e u t r a l ( e .g . , B a r n e s &

K e e n a n , 1 9 9 3; H a y e s , K o h l e n b e r g , & H a y e s , 1 9 9 1 ). P e r -

h a p s a s a r e s u l t, s t e r e o t y p e d i n f o r m a t i o n t e n d s t o b e b e t t e r

r e m e m b e r e d ( B o d e n h a u s e n , 1 9 88 ) a n d a m b i g u o u s i nf o r-

m a t i o n t e n d s t o b e c o n s t r u e d a s s t e r e o ty p e - c o n f i r m i n g

( D u n c a n , 1 9 76 ) . W e a l l l e a r n t h e c o m m o n s t e r e o ty p e s ,

a n d o n c e l e a r n e d , t h e s e s t e r e o t y p e s n e v e r t r u l y d i s a p p e a r

( D e v i n e , 1 9 8 9 ) .

4. Man y o f the things human s do to change or eliminate un

desirable verbal categorical processes are either inert or prone to

making these processes more resistant to change. T h e c o m m o n -

s e n s e m e t h o d s p e o p l e u s e t o s ol v e p r e j u d i c e a r e l a r g e l y

u s e le s s o r w o r s e . O n e c o m m o n s e n s e t e n d e n c y w h e n c o n -

f r o n t e d w i t h p r e j u d i c i a l a t t i tu d e s i s to c o r r e c t t h e m d i -

r e c t ly t h r o u g h e d u c a t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e s e m e t h o d s

h a v e v ir t u a ll y n o i m p a c t ( T h o r n t o n & W a h l , 1 99 6; W a h l

& L ef k o w it s , 1 9 8 9) . A n o t h e r c o m m o n s e n s e a p p r o a c h i s

t o c a u t i o n a g a i n s t n eg a t i v e a tt i t ud e s , d e m a n d c o r r e c t b e -

h a v i or s , o r t o v i go r o u s l y p r o t e s t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f

s t i g m a t i z e d p o p u l a t io n s . U n f o r t u n a t e ly , t h i s m e t h o d i s

n o t o n l y o f te n i n e r t ; i t c a n p r o d u c e p a r a d o x i c a l e f f e c ts

( C o r r i g a n e t a l. , 2 0 0 1) . F o r e x a m p l e , c r e a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s

t h a t d e m a n d c o r r e c t b e h a v i o r s ( e . g. , D o n o t s ta r e a t

t h e p h y s i ca l ly d i s a b l e d ) c a n p a r a d o x i c a l l y i n c r e a s e t h e

a v o i d a n c e o f s t i g m a t i z e d p e r s o n s ( L a n g e r , F i s k e , T a y l o r,

& C h a n o w i t z , 1 9 7 6 ). A n o t h e r m e t h o d i s t o t ry to s u p p r e s s

n e g a t i v e t h o u g h t s d i r e c t l y ( W e g n e r , S c h n e i d e r , C a r t e r , &

W h i t e , 1 9 8 7) , i n t e r n a l l y s c o l d i n g o n e s e l f f o r p r e j u d i c i a l

w o r d s o r c o n c e p t s a n d t r y in g to k e e p t h e m o u t o f m i n d .

D o i n g s o , h o w e v e r, m a k e s t h e s e t h o u g h t s m o r e f r e q u e n t

a n d m o r e b e h a v i o r a l l y i m p a c t f u l ( M a c r a e , B o d e n h a u s e n ,

M i l n e , & J e t t e n , 1 9 94 ; S m a r t & W e g n e r , 1 9 9 9 ) . F o r e x a m -

p l e , a c t i v el y s u p p r e s s i n g n e g a t i v e s t e r e o t y p e s r e s u l t s i n

m o r e , n o t l es s, b e h a v i o r a l a v o i d a n c e o f s t i g m a t i z e d

g r o u p s ( M a c r a e e t a l. , 19 9 4 ). T h e f a i l u r e o f t h e s e m e t h o d s

m a k e s a ll t h e m o r e p o i g n a n t t h e h u m a n c o n d i t i o n w e a r e

f a c i n g . P r e j u d i c e w i l l n o t b e d e f e a t e d b y l o g ic , r u l e s, f i n-

g e r w a g g i n g , o r s i m p l e g o o d w i l l . I t w i l l t a k e m o r e . B e h a v -

i o r t h e r a p is t s a r e a m o n g t h e f e w w h o a r e w e l l p o s i t i o n e d

t o l e a r n w h a t t h a t m i g h t b e .

A W a r A g a i n s t P r e j u d i c e

A s t h i s a r t ic l e i s b e i n g w r i t t e n A m e r i c a n s a r e f i g h t i n g

a w a r a g a i n s t t e r r o r is m b u t t h e e s s e n c e o f t h e s e a t t ac k s

s e e m s l a r g e l y t o h av e b e e n m i s s e d . T h e W o r l d T r a d e C e n -

t e r t o w e r s f e l l i n a t e r r o r i s t a c t , b u t t h e y a l s o f e l l a s a n e x -

t e n s i o n o f r e l i gi o u s e x t r e m i s m a n d e t h n i c a n d r e l i g io u s

p r e j u d i c e . S e e n i n t h a t li g h t, t h e w a r o n t e r r o r i s m s h o u l d

a l so b e a w a r a g a in s t h u m a n p r e j u d i c e .

A w a r a g a i n s t p r e j u d i c e i s n o t a n e a s y o n e t o f i g h t ,

h o w e v e r . I t i s n o t a s i m p l e m a t t e r o f m i l i t a r y c a m p a i g n s ,

o r o f k i ll i n g o n e ' s e n e m y . I t is a w a r t o b e f o u g h t w i t h i n

t h e h u m a n h e a r t .

B e h a v i o r t h e r a p is t s m a y b e a b l e to b r i n g s o m e n e e d e d

w i s d o m t o t h e se m a t t e r s . W h e n c l ie n t s e n t e r i n t o a v e r b a l

w o r l d i n w h i c h l i f e i s n o t w o r t h l i v i n g , o r n o t h i n g t h e y

t o u c h i s s a f e f r o m p o i s o n , o r t h e i r a n x i e t y is t o o h i g h t o

c o p e w i t h , o r t h e y n e e d a d r i n k t o s u r vi v e , t h e y a r e e n g a g -

i n g i n v e r b a l p r o c e s s e s n o t u n l i k e t h o s e t h a t c r e a t e a

w o r l d i n w h i c h i n f id e l s ha v e d e f i l e d a h o l y l a n d a n d

t h e r e f o r e m u s t d i e . A l t h o u g h t h e c o n t e n t i s d i f f e r e n t , th e

p r o c e s s e s m a y b e s i m i l ax :

T h e r e i s g r o w i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e i m p a c t o f d i f f ic u l t

t h o u g h t s a n d f e e l i ng s c a n b e r e d u c e d s i g n if i c a n tl y b y

t e a c h i n g t h o s e w h o a r e s u f f e r i n g to n o t i c e t h e i r t h o u g h t s

a n d e m o t i o n s w i th o u t b e c o m i n g e n t a n g l e d i n t h e m . A c -

c e p t a n c e a n d C o m m i t m e n t T h e r a p y ( A CT ; H a y es , St ro -

s a h l , & W i l s o n , 1 9 9 9 ) t a k e s t hi s a p p r o a c h , a n d h a s b e e n

s h o w n t o r e d u c e t h e n e g a t i v e b e h a v i o r a l i m p a c t o f e v e n

s u c h h o r r i f i c c o n t e n t a s d e l u s i o n s a n d h a l l u c i n a t io n s ,

w i t h o u t t h e s e s y m p t o m s t h e m s e l v e s h a v i n g t o f ir s t d i s -

a p p e a r ( B a c h & H a y e s , i n p r e s s ) . S i m i l a r e v i d e n c e e x i s ts

f o r t h e r e l a t e d a p p r o a c h e s u s e d i n M i n d f u l n e s s - B a s e d

C o g n i t i v e T h e r a p y ( S e g a l , M a t t h e w s , & T e a s d a l e , 2 0 0 2 ) ,

D i a l e c ti c a l B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y ( L i n e h a n , 1 9 9 3) , a n d s i m i-

l a r f o r m s o f i n t e r v e n t i o n .

M i n d f u l n e s s , c o g n i ti v e d e f u s io n , a n d a c c e p t a n c e c a n

b e p o w e r f u l m e a n s o f r e m o v i n g t h e f a n g s f r o m c o g n i t iv e

e n t a n g l e m e n t . I t i s n o t t o o m u c h o f a s t r e t c h t o im a g i n e

t h a t t h e se s a m e m e t h o d s c o u l d b e h e l p f u l i n a ll e v i a ti n g

h u m a n p r e j u d i c e . P e r h a p s b e h a v i o r t h e r a p i s ts c o u l d

t e a c h o t h e r s t o s t e p b a c k f r o m p r e j u d i c i a l th o u g h t s , t o

w a t c h t h e m d i s p a ss i o n a te l y w i t h o u t e n t a n g l e m e n t , a n d

t o a l lo w m o r e f l e x ib l e a n d f l u id m o d e s o f t h i n k i n g t o

e m e r g e w i t h r e g a r d t o s t ig m a t i z e d p o p u l a t i o n s . T h e r e i s

e v i d e n c e t h a t t hi s a p p r o a c h m i g h t b e h e l p f u l. F o r e x a m p l e ,

t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n t o b e m o r e m i n d f u l o f t h e i r t h o u g h ts

a b o u t h a n d i c a p p e d p e o p l e r e s u l t e d in le s s p r e j u d i c e d b e -

h a v i o r a n d l o w e r l e v el s o f a v o i d a n c e o f t h e h a n d i c a p p e d ,

e v e n t h o u g h t h e r e w a s n o a t t e m p t t o c e n s o r o r s u p p r e s s

t h e s u b j e c t s ' k n o w l e d g e o f s t e r e o t y p e s ( L a n g e r , B a s h n e r ,

& C h a n o w i t z , 1 9 8 5 ).

I t s e e m s p o s s i b le t h a t t h e w a r o n p r e j u d i c e m i g h t b e

a w a r t h a t i s w o n m o r e b y t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l e q u i v a l e n t o f

s o l d i e r s l e a v i n g th e f i e l d t h a n b y t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l e q u iv -

a l e n t o f p o w e r f u l m i l i t a r y h a r d w a r e . W o u l d t h e r e s ti ll b e

a c o g n i t i v e w a r i f n o o n e s h o w e d u p t o f i g h t i t? W o u l d

t h e r e b e p r e j u d i c e i f v e r b a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a n d e v a l u a t i o n


5/6

3 0 0 H a y e s e t a l

o f h u m a n b e i n g s w e r e m e r e l y a n a u t o m a t i c p r o c e s s t o b e

w a t c h e d , a s o p p o s e d t o b e i n g a m e t h o d f o r s t r u c t u r i n g

t h e w o r l d i n w h i c h w e l iv e ?

I n A C T t h e s e m e t h o d s o f a c c e p t a n c e a n d d e f u s i o n a r e

a lw a y s f o l l o w e d b y c o m m i t t e d a c t i o n l i n k e d t o c h o s e n

v a l u es , a n d s o t o o d e f e a t i n g p r e j u d i c e i n v o l v e s a p o si t iv e

a g e n d a o f h u m a n c o n n e c t i o n , f r i e n d s h i p , a n d a l l i a n ce .

E x p o s u r e t o c o l la b o r a t i v e , e q u a l s t a tu s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h

m e m b e r s o f s t i g m a t iz e d g r o u p s i s k n o w n t o p r o d u c e d e -

c r e a s e s in p r e j u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e s e g r o u p s ( D e s-

f o r g e s e t al ., 1 9 9 1 ) . I n t h e c u r r e n t c o n t e x t , p a r t o f t h e w a r

o n p r e j u d i c e m i g h t i n vo l v e f o r m i n g d e e p e r a n d m o r e

h u m a n r e l a t io n s h i p s w i th M u s l i m n e i g h b o r s , o r w o r k i n g

t o p r o t e c t a lo c a l M o s q u e f r o m h a r m .

I t i s t r u e o f c o u r s e t h a t O s a m a B i n L a d e n is u n l i k e l y t o

s e e k o u t h e l p i n r e d u c i n g h i s p r e j u d i c i a l b e l i ef s e v e n i f a

t e c h n o l o g y f o r d o i n g s o w a s av a i l ab l e . F o r tu n a t e l y , t h e r e

i s a m o r e r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e t a r g e t c l o s e a t h a n d . A w a r o n

p r e j u d i c e c o u l d c e r t a i n l y sa f el y s t a r t w i t h t h e p e r s o n o n e

s e es w h e n b r u s h i n g o n e ' s t e e t h . W e c o u l d s t o p r u n n i n g

f r o m o u r o w n o b j e c t i f ic a t i o n a n d d e h u m a n i z a t i o n o f

o t h e r s , a n d a d m i t t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e s e e v e r y d a y c o g n i -

t iv e p r o c e s s e s . A c c e p t a n c e a n d d e f u s i o n , c o m b i n e d w i t h

p o s i t iv e s te p s t o r e a c h o u t t o o t h e r s - - n o t a s o b j e c t s, b u t

a s h u m a n b e i n g s - - c o u l d p r o v i d e a w a y f o r w a r d w i t h o u t

t h e f ai l ur e s a n d r is k s o f m o r e c o m m o n s e n s e m e t h o d s

t h a t a r e u s e l es s , d a n g e r o u s , o r b o t h .

I f A m e r i c a t r ie s o n l y t o f i g h t a m i l i t a ry w a r o n t e r r o r -

i s m , a g r e a t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r h u m a n a d v a n c e m e n t w i ll

h a v e b e e n m i s s e d . B e h a v i o r t h e r a p i s t s h a v e a r o l e i n t h e

w a r t h a t s h o u l d b e f o u g h t : d e v e l o p i n g a n d t e s t in g m e t h o d s

f o r r e d u c i n g h u m a n p r e j u d i c e . T o t a k e u p t h a t c h a l -

l e n g e , h o w e v e r , w e n e e d f i rs t t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h i s f i g h t i s

n o t s i m p l y w i t h t h e O s a m a w h o m a y b e h i d i n g i n a c a v e i n

a c o u n t r y f a r a w ay , b u t a l s o w i t h t h e O s a m a w h o i s s u r e l y

h i d i n g w i t h i n o u r o w n s k i n.

R e f e r e n c e s

B a c h , E , & H a ye s , S . C . ( i n p r e s s ) . T h e u s e o f A c c e p t a n c e a n d C o m m i t -

m e n t T h e r a p y t o p r e v e n t t h e r e h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n o f p s y c h o t i c

p a t i e n t s : A r a n d o m i z e d c o n t r o l l e d t r i a l . Jo u rn a l o f C o nsu l tin g a n d

Clinical Psychology.

B a r n e s , D . , & K e e n a n , M . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . A t r a n s f e r o f fu n c t i o n s t h r o u g h

d e r i v e d a r b i t r a r y a n d n o n a r b i t r a r y s t im u l u s re la t io n s .Jo u rn a l o f th e

Experimental A nab;sis o f Behavior, 59 , 6 1 - 8 1 .

B o d e n h a u s e n , G . V . (1 9 8 8 ) . S t e r e o t y p i c b i a se s i n s o c i a l d e c is i o n m a k -

i n g a n d m e m o r y : T e s t i n g p r o c e s s m o d e l s o f s t e r e o t y p e u se .Jo u rn a l

of Personalit~ and Social Psycholog); 55,

7 2 6 - 7 3 7 .

Cor r igan, E W. , R iver , L . P . , Lundin , R . K. , Penn, D. L. , Uphof f -

Wasowski , K. , Campion,J . , Mathisen,J . , Gagnon, C . , Bergman, M. ,

G o l d s t e i n , H . , & K u b i a k , M . A . ( 2 0 0 1 ) . T h r e e s t r a t eg i e s f o r c h a n g -

i n g a t t r i b u t i o n s a b o u t s e v e r e m e n t a l i ll n es s . Schizophrenia Bulletin ,

27, 187-195.

Desforges , D. M . , Lord , C . G. , Ramsey, S . L . , Maso n,J . A. , Van Leewen ,

M. , West , S. , & Leppe r , M. (1991 ) . Ef fec ts of s t ruc tu red co opera -

t i v e c o n t a c t o n c h a n g i n g n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s t i g m a t i z e d

social grou ps.Jo urna l o f Perso*mlit f and Social Psychology, 60 , 5 3 1 - 5 4 4 .

D e v i n e , E G . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . S t er e o t y p e s a n d p r e j u d i c e : T h e i r a u t o m a t i c a n d

c o n t r o l l e d c o m p o n e n t s . Jour nal o f Personalit , and Social Psychology,

56, 5 - 1 8 .

D u n c a n , B . L . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . D i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n a n d a t t r i b u t i o n

o f i n t e r g r o u p v i o l e n c e : T e s t i n g t h e l o w e r l i m i t s o f s t e r e o t y p i n g o f

Blacks. Jou rnal o f Personalit f and Social Psychology, 34 , 5 9 0 - 5 9 8 .

G a e r t n e r , L ., & I n sk o , C . A . ( 2 0 0 0) . I n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t h e

m i n i m a l g r o u p p a r a d i g m : C a t e g o r i z a t i o n , r e c i p r o c a t i o n , o r f ea r ?

Jour nal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 79 , 7 7 - 9 4 .

Hayes , S . C . , Barnes-Holm es, D. , & Roch e , B . (Eds . ) . (2001) .

Relational

Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian acc ount o f hum an language and cogni-

tion.

N e w Y or k : K l u w er A c a d e m i c / P l e n u m .

Hayes , S . C . , Ko hlenb erg , B . S ., & Hayes , L .J . (1991) . Th e t r an sfe r of

s p e c if i c a n d g e n e r a l c o n s e q u e n t i a l f u n c t i o n s t h r o u g h s i m p l e a n d

c o n d i t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n c e r e l a t io n s . Jo u rn a l o f th e Exp er im enta l A n a l -

ysis o f Behavior, 56 , 1 1 9 - 1 3 7 .

Hayes, S. C., Strosa hl, K., & W ilson, K. G. (199 9).

Accep ta nce a n d C o m ,

mitment Therapy.: An experientia l approach to behavior change.

New

York: Th e G ui l ford Press .

Hew stone , M . , Jaspars , J . , & La l l jee , M. (1982) . Soc ia l r epr esent a t ion s ,

s o c i a l a t t r i b u t i o n a n d s o c i a l i d e n t i t y : T h e i n t e r g r o u p i m a g e s o f

p u b l i c a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e s c h o o l b o y s .

Eu ro p ea n Jo u rn a l o f

Social Psychology, 12 ,

2 4 1 - 2 6 9 .

J a c k s o n , L . M . , & H u n s b e r g e r , B . ( 1 9 9 9 ) . A n i n t e r g r o u p p e r s p e c t i v e o n

r e l ig i o n a n d p re ju d ice .Jo u rn a l fo r th e Sc ien ti f ic S tu d y o f Re lig ion , 3 8 ,

5 0 9 - 5 2 3 .

K r u g l a n s k i , A . W ., & F r e u n d , T . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T h e f r e e z i n g a n d u n f r e e z i n g o f

lay infe rence : Ef fec ts on impress iona l pr imacy, e thnic s te reotyp-

i n g a n d n u m e r i c a l a n ch o r in g .Jo u rn a l o f Exp er im en ta l S o c ia l Psych ol -

ogy, 19,

4 4 8 - 4 6 8 .

Langer , E .J . , Bashner , R . S . , & Chanowitz , B . (1985) . Decreas ing pre j -

u d i c e b y i n c r e a s i n g d iscr im in a t io n .Jo u rn a l o f Perso na l i ty a n d S oc ia l

Psychology, 4 9 , 1 1 3 - 1 2 0 .

Langer , E .J . , F iske, S . , Taylor , S . E ., & Chano witz , B . (19 76) . S t igm a ,

s t a r in g , a n d d i s c o m f o r t : A n o v e l - s ti m u l u s h y p o t h e s i s .

Jo u rn a l o f

Experimental Social Psychology, 12 ,

4 5 1 - 4 6 3 .

Linehan, M. M. (1993) . Cognitive behavioral treatment o f borderline person-

ality disorder. New York: Th e G ui l ford Press .

Lipken s , G. , Hayes , S. C ., & Hayes , L .J . (1993) . Lo ngi t udin a l s tudy of

d e r i v e d s t i m u l u s r e l a t i o n s i n a n

i n f a n t . J o u r n a l o f Experimental Child

Ps~;chology, 56, 2 0 1 - 2 3 9 .

Macrae , C . N. , Bod enh ause n, G. V., Milne , A. B . , &J e t te n , J . (1994 ) .

O u t o f m i n d b u t b a c k i n s i g h t : S t e r e o t y p e s o n t h e r e b o u n d . J o u r -

nal o f Personality and Social Ps~chology, 67 ,

8 0 8 - 8 1 7 .

Macrae , C . N. , Milne , A. B ., & Bode nha use n, G. V. (1994) . S te reo types

as energy-saving devices : A peek ins i de the co gni t ive to o lb o x .Jo u r -

nal o f Personalitv and Social Psychology, 66 , 3 7 - 4 7 .

M o x o n , R D . , K e e n a n , M . , & H i n e , L . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . G e n d e i ~ r o le s t e r e o t y p i n g

a n d s t i m u l u s e q u i v a l e n c e. The Psychological Record, 43 , 3 8 1 - 3 9 4 .

The Com pact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

( 1 9 8 4 ) . O x f o r d ,

E n g l a n d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Pr es s .

R e h f e l d t , R . A . , & H a y es , L . J . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e l o n g - t e r m r e t e n t i o n o f g e n -

e ra l ized eq uiva len ce c lasses . The Psychological Record, 50 , 4 0 5 - 4 2 8 .

Segal, Z. V., Matthews, J. M . G., & Teas dale, J. D. (2002 ). Mindfulness-

based cognitive therapy or depression. New York: Th e G ui l ford Press .

S m a r t , L ., & W e g n e r , D . M . ( 1 9 9 9 ) . C o v e r i n g u p w h a t c a n ' t b e s e e n :

C o n c e a l a b le s t i g m a a n d m e n t a l

co n tr o l . Jo u rn a l o f Perso n al i t~ a n d

Social Psycholog3; 77,

4 7 4 - 4 8 6 .

Spears , R . , & Man stead, A. S . (1989) . T he soc ia l cont ext of s te reoty ping

a n d d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .

European Jour nal o f Social Psychology, 19 ,

1 0 1 -

121.

Ta jfe l , H. (1982) . Soc ial psychology of in te rgro up re la t ion s . A n n u a l

Review of P~ychology, 33 , 1 - 3 9 .

Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. R, & Fla me nt, C., (19 71). Social cate go-

r i z a t i o n a n d i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r . European Journ al o f Social Ps~chol-

0gy, 1, 149-177.

T h o r n t o n , J . A . , & W a h l , O . E ( 1 9 9 6 ) . h n p a c t o f a n e w s p a p e r a r t ic l e o n

a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d m e n t a l i l lnes s.Jou rnal o f Comm unity Psychology, 24 ,

1 7 - 2 5 .

Wahl , O. E , & Lefkopwits, J . Y (1989) . I mp ac t of a te levis ion f ilm on

a t t i tudes toward menta l i l lness .

Am er ica n Jo u rn a l o f C o m m u n i t~ Psy-

chology, 17,

5 2 1 - 5 2 8 .


6/6

Prejudice, Terrorism, and Behavior Therapy 301

Watt, A., Keen an, M., Barnes, D., Cairns, E. (1991). Social categori-

zation and stimulus equivalence.

ThePsychologicalRecord 41

33-50.

Wegnei, D. M., Schneidei ; D.J. , Carter, S., III, White, L. (1987). Par-

adoxical effects of thought su ppression.

Journal of Personalit~ and

Social Psychology 53

409-418.

Wilson, K. G., Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of deriv ed stimulus

relafions.Jou rnal of he ExperimentaIanalysis ofBehavi~ 66

267-281.

Address corres ponden ce o Steven C. Hayes, Departmen t of Psychology/

296, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557-0062; e-mail: hayes@scs.

unr.edu.

Received: February 27 2002

Accepted: April 5 2002

hayes - terrorism, prejudice and behavior therapy

Documents