Scapegoating Examples

Words: 623
Pages: 3

To understand why this study analyzes scapegoating between unacquainted highschool teens aged 16 to 18, it is crucial to first reference previously conducted studies on scapegoating. The body of research on scapegoating, while small and outdated, have several overlapping aims, especially in respect to why the scapegoating phenomena exists. The majority of these studies agree to some extent that scapegoating exists because of the desire to reduce guilt or to increase control. Rothschild and his co-researchers explain in their research how scapegoating allows individuals to 1) “maintain their perceived personal moral value by minimizing feelings of guilt over one’s responsibility of a negative outcome” and 2) “maintain control with a clear explanation …show more content…
Hersh also suggests that scapegoating enables individuals to avoid responsibility by “serving as a barrier to… examining their own behavior and taking responsibility for its consequences” (Hersh, 2013). Conversely, Nesdale proposes that our “tendency to associate with groups” and our “motivation to enhance group status, facilitate achievement, conform to group standards, etc.” are instead, the primary reasons for scapegoating (Nesdale, 2007). While Nesdale emphasizes scapegoating as a group phenomenon rather than as an individual desire to gain power or avoid responsibility, the concept of increasing power and status through scapegoating is seen in all these sources. These sources, however, are limited in that the models they propose offer only one or two explanations when in fact, there could be many more explanations for why scapegoating persists. Categorizing all the possible explanations for why individuals scapegoat into just one or two broad explanations could potentially lead to the downplayed importance of other significant reasons for …show more content…
The observations these studies offer all vary slightly, but revolve around the concept that scapegoats have an obvious difference or obvious vulnerability. For instance, Douglas concludes in his study how a “person who has a difference that is provocative, disliked, inept, or engenders hostility and aggression” had higher chances of being scapegoated (Douglas, 2002). Likewise, Hersh, Leman, and Watling all conclude how individuals that were clearly distinct from others were often times the scapegoat. Hersh goes further into detail, elucidating how our preferences for certain traits and characteristics leads to stereotyped judgments or prejudices, which then lead to discrimination and aggression towards discredited groups or individuals (Hersh, 2013). Despite this common explanation, there are still may other proposed observations. In Douglas’ research, Douglas separates the scapegoats into two groups: temporary scapegoats and permanent scapegoats. Temporary scapegoats are described as individuals that are different and or prove to be a hindrance to group efforts, whereas permanent scapegoats are described to be individuals that lack power, are psychologically weak, and or are isolated (Douglas, 2012). Douglas’ division of scapegoats and their characteristics would them account for Davis’ description of