On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

The military uses classical conditioning to desensitize soldiers to violence. They are forced to watch gruesome films, and, while the military no longer does this, at one time they had them chant that they wanted to rape, kill, pillage, and burn.

The movies classically condition adolescents by depicting suffering and violence repeatedly and associating it with pleasure. Villains are characters who look like human beings, no longer far-fetched monsters such as Dracula and Frankenstein. The result is the desensitization of citizens to the pain and suffering of others. Infliction of pain is a source of entertainment (315).

The military uses operant conditioning to overcome a soldier’s resistance to killing. The soldier is rewarded with badges and passes for shooting down targets that resemble human beings. The reflex to shoot becomes automatic. When children stand behind guns and shoot down human enemies that emit cries of pain repeatedly in video games, they too are being conditioned to defeat the inhibition to kill.

To be sure, not all video games are bad, as some encourage creativity and problem-solving. However, the ones simulating shooting are encouraging violence.

Humans learn via the observation and imitation of role models. Role models are effective when there is vicarious reinforcement or the learner can experience the role vicariously: They are similar to the learner, they have social power or the power to reward, and they generate status envy (322). The military uses drill sergeants in basic training as role models. Drill sergeants have impeccable credentials as decorated soldiers, eliciting envy. They are similar to their charges in their manner of dress and have social power. They teach their charges that physical aggression is the “essence of manhood and that violence is an effective and desirable solution” (323) for problems on the battlefield. Crucially, however, they also teach obedience: Soldiers must not fire unless commanded to do so or they will be severely punished.

The movies offer roles models to children that are unrestrained by obedience to the law. Initially, the heroes of movies killed within the law, then movies presented vigilantes as heroes, then “vicarious role models who killed in retribution for adolescent social slights” (326), and finally those who kill for no reason at all. These new role models fill a void for boys without stable male role models in their lives.

An understanding of killing in combat sheds light on the increase in killings in American society. Race, gender, and sex provide emotional distance in the US, with the media often the only point of connection. Grossman argues that the modern media divides the citizenry, creates violent stereotypes, and teaches violence. Essentially, the country’s children have been taught to kill in the same way that soldiers have, only without the safeguards.

There is a need to reverse this desensitization. Greater control must be exercised over what children see. There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence linking violence in the media with violent crime. Small percentage increases in violence among those with an aggressive predisposition can have an enormous impact on murder rates. Each act of violence generates greater levels of violence.

It is possible to stop this onslaught of violence, just as the country de-escalated the nuclear arms race. If the country fails to do so, there are two possibilities: The US will either go the route of the Mongols and the Third Reich and ultimately fall or go the route of Lebanon and Yugoslavia by immersing itself in civil war.