Cognitions and Comprehension
Cogent Cognitions from Compressed Comprehension:
Beck’s Theory of Interpersonal and International Conflict
Michael J. Walk
University of Baltimore
December 14, 2006
APPL 605.185
1
Cognitions and Comprehension
2
Cogent Cognitions from Compressed Comprehension:
Beck’s Theory of Interpersonal and International Conflict
The great tragedies in world history—genocides, holocausts, ethnic cleansings, and
wars—can seem perplexing to even the most astute historian, sociologist, or political theorist.
One can see a plethora of extant interpersonal evils and atrocities: rape, murder, domestic
violence, and other assaults. Hatred seems to be everywhere; it is a large part of the fabric of
daily life. How does one explain, let alone attempt to alleviate or heal, the damage wrought by
centuries of humans waging war on humans? A.T. Beck (1999) steps up to this boggling task in
his book, Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis for Anger, Hostility, and Violence. Based on
his cognitive theory of psychotherapy, Beck proffers an explanation. This paper will summarize
Beck’s cognitive theory of psychotherapy, elucidate the main arguments presented in Prisoners
of Hate, compare and contrast Beck’s theories with 3 other systems of psychotherapy (Roger’s
Client-Centered Therapy, Freud’s Psychoanalysis, and Adlerian Therapy), and present some of
the evidence for Beck’s theory of hatred.
Cognitive Psychotherapy
Systems of psychotherapy often attempt to locate a root cause of psychopathology and/or
attempt to delineate a method to restore an abnormal psyche to normality. Beck’s cognitive
theory does both. According to Prochaska and Norcross (2007), the central tenant of cognitive
theory is that the way a person reacts to experiences is based on how those experiences are
interpreted. That is, the meaning one assigns to an event determines how one feels and acts in
response to it. Beck (1999) himself states, "In general, whether we feel anger, anxiety, sadness,
or joy in a particular encounter depends on our interpretation, the meaning we assign to it” (p. 2).
The source of pathology is assigning inappropriate meanings to events. These inappropriate
Cognitions and Comprehension
3
cognitions often have specific forms: overgeneralization, selective abstraction, or dichotomous
thinking (see Prochaska & Norcross, 2007, p. 330). The way to repair pathology is the fix the
maladaptive cognitions through several different therapeutic methods such as the Socratic
dialogue, cognitive restructuring, and distancing (see Prochaska & Norcross, 2007, pp. 331-333).
Given that Beck’s theory is a system of psychotherapy, one must wonder how such a
theory could apply to such large-scale and wide-ranging phenomena as world wars and
genocides. However, although the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts, if all the parts
function the same, it is likely that the whole resembles or amplifies the processes taking place in
each part. In other words, although ethnic and cultural groups operate in ways seemingly
unrelated to the cognitive structures of an individual, their modes of hostile behavior, according
to Beck, are incredibly parallel.
The Main Tenants of Prisoners of Hate
Beck’s argument in Prisoners of Hate centers around two concepts: 1) an evolutionary
propensity to make cognitive misjudgments and 2) the primacy of cognition as the explanation
for individual behavior.
The Function of Evolution
Evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain human behaviors by positing how certain
psychological mechanisms that seem to exist today would be adaptive for our ancestors.
According to Beck, we human beings have inherited—much to our present consternation—an
ego-centric bias, a tendency for overreaction, and a dualistic cognitive mechanism called primal
thinking. These evolutionary bequests are significantly responsible for the hostility and violence
that our society currently experiences.
Cognitions and Comprehension
4
Beck claims that the ego-centric bias was adaptive, because it made survival paramount
to our evolutionary predecessors. This argument is relatively commonsensical—those who
valued their own survival were the most likely to survive. However, this bias is also responsible
for the propensity for selfishness and self-defense. Human beings tend to view as noisome and
threatening organisms that imperil any aspect of the self—whether endangering life, limb, or
even self-esteem. Beck suggests that threats to the psyche are often reacted to with the same
vehemence as threats to physical health. When an event or organism is perceived as jeopardizing
the self, the feelings, thoughts, or intent of that organism are quickly disregarded as irrelevant or
are interpreted as harmful. Expecting the worst, we mobilize ourselves to defend or attack. But
why do our interpretations of actions tend to be negative and not positive? Why do we tend to
overreact to harrowing events?
Beck argues that we also have inherited the inclination to overreact: “In life-or-death
situations, it is better to interpret a neutral act incorrectly as offensive than to miss a real threat
by underplaying its importance. …In the prehistoric wild, there presumably was survival value in
overreacting to any specific noxious stimulus” (pp. 59-60). Once again, this seems to be common
sense. In a time when multiple threats to survival existed, judging ambiguous situations as
threatening would increase chances of survival since one would be less likely to overlook a real
threat. Criticism, threatening comments, or even non-vocal messages of anger or hostility are
quickly interpreted by almost all humans as threatening to either self-esteem or physical health.
And we react in accordance with our interpretation of those messages.
The final, and perhaps most important, psychological mechanism responsible for erred
judgments is called primal thinking. Primal thinking refers to the dichotomous classification,
oversimplification, and overgeneralization that occur when a person perceives a threat.
Cognitions and Comprehension
5
According to Beck, “These primal thinking processes are activated whenever people believe that
their vital interests are at stake. The cognitive processes extract the most personally salient
features of the situation and are economical in their efficiency” (p. 73). Although this type of
thinking is quite valuable in a genuine emergency, in situations other than real emergencies, it
can result in disaster: “The selective reduction of data into a few crude categories wastes much
available information…. Personally relevant details are taken out of context, the meanings
tending to be excessively ego-centric and the conclusions too broad…. It is disruptive to the
smooth functioning of everyday life and to the solution of normal interpersonal problems” (p.
73).
These psychological mechanisms have a very large impact on the daily interactions of
individuals as well as the interactions between groups and nations. Given our susceptibility to
making errors of cognition, it is important to understand how our cognitions shape and control
our feelings and behaviors.
Negative Cognitions and Negative Behaviors
Beck believes if one wants to understand the behavior of humans, one must ferret out
their cognitions. The way humans act and react depends on their interpretations of reality and its
events. This applies especially to the judgments we make about the actions of others. The key
factor determining our reaction to someone else’s behavior is “the explanation of the other
person’s action, and whether that explanation makes the other person’s behavior acceptable to
us” (Beck, 1999, p. 43). Beck does not state that how we “feel” as a result of a person’s behavior
is unimportant, but that our “feelings are an expression of the meaning we attach” to the behavior
(Beck, 1999, p. 58). The feelings I experience when a trailing car passes me on a double-yellowlined highway are different depending on whether I attribute that action to the person’s hasty and
Cognitions and Comprehension
6
rude carelessness or to the person’s experiencing a family emergency. And although we never
actually know the true intention or motivation behind the actions of others, we almost invariably
assume the worst. Beck states, “It is interesting that when we are distressed by another person’s
behavior, we tend to assume that the hurt was either intentional or due to his or her negligence.
We do not initially consider the reverse: that the distressing incident was accidental or
unavoidable” (p. 99).
According to Beck, when we interpret an action as intentionally derisive, our response is
to avenge or attack in order to eliminate the source of the injury (albeit psychological). Most of
the time this vengeance is solely verbal. However, with a few cognitive components in place,
lambastings can quickly become violence.
One of these cognitive components is the phenomenon Beck refers to as negative
framing. According to Beck, negative framing is “at the core of negative social stereotypes,
religious prejudice, and intolerance” (p. 8). Negative framing is what occurs when a person’s
perception of someone becomes negatively ossified. Due to past experiences or social messages
that portray the other with a negative valence, future interpretations of that person’s behaviors
are automatically negative. In fact, every ambiguous action is consistently seen as “intentional
rather than accidental, as malicious rather than benign” (Beck, 1999, p. 43). This obdurate
cognitive schema biases all perceptions of the other and further solidifies in a vicious selffulfilling prophecy. This accretion of negative interpretations is a key component in anger giving
way violence.
However, viewing the other person negatively does not occur independently of a change
in the view of the self. Beck believes that viewing the self as good and blameless is also a factor
Cognitions and Comprehension
7
in the escalation to violence. If the righteous self is threatened by a miscreant other, the self must
be protected at all costs—even physical aggression.
The addition of these two cognitive mistakes (i.e., negative framing of other and positive
framing of self) often results in a devastating sum: violence. But at the core of Beck’s book is the
premise that these cognitive errors are not only the culprits behind interpersonal hostility and
violence but also group and international violence: "Hostility—whether experienced by a group
or an individual—stems from the same principles: seeing the adversary as wrong or bad, and the
self as right or good” (p. 26). That is, the cognitive explanation of partner and spouse brutality is
applicable to the brutality between groups and nations. “People form the same kind of negative
attributions and overgeneralizations in power struggles with their social, ethnic adversaries as
they form with a parent, sibling, or mate" (p. 153). Group quarrels function analogously to
individual disputes: the other is viewed as a threatening enemy, the self (or in-group) is viewed
as moral and upright, and the need to eliminate the threat to group-safety or group-identity is
seen as paramount. Actions of the out-group are perceived within a negative interpretational
framework as the respective groups become more and more irascible to one another. Odium
abounds between groups; within groups, perceptions of probity grow into super-moral
proportions.
But how does this situation, although teeming with hatred and malice, explode into
slaughter? Beck argues that, in most cases, empathy and the moral code inhibit actual acts of
violence and murder. The turning point between hatred and slaying is when the perceived
persecutor is viewed so negatively that they appear to be sub- or in-human and need to be
eliminated or punished for their sheer deleteriousness. As a doctor amputates a gangrenous limb,
Cognitions and Comprehension
8
destroying the offending person or group is seen as a necessary, even morally upright, act. As
Beck states,
The psychological mechanisms used in disengaging the moral code in combat are similar
to those seen in individual crime, intergroup violence, terrorism, and genocide. The
image of the Enemies as subhuman or inhuman, the belief that they deserve to be
punished, the displacement of responsibility onto the leaders or the group, the perversion
of the moral sense, and the belief that killing is noble contribute in varying degrees. (pp.
223-224)
While it seems incomprehendable to most humans that the “average” person is capable of
committing violent acts of categorical murder, history has shown it to be true, and Beck’s theory
has shown what elements are necessary for such atrocities to take place.
Because of the negative tone of this paper so far, one might assume that Beck has a
negative view of humanity. Beck does state that humans possess, thanks to natural selection,
cognitive mechanisms that, in our present society, are fundamentally maladaptive. However, his
assay of the human condition does not end there. Beck also argues that humans possess, as a
result of genetic inheritance, the tendency to engage in positive behaviors (e.g., altruism, selfsacrifice, etc.). The problem is that these pro-social behaviors are usually limited to those
situations that are seen as beneficial to the self’s in-group. That is, one will usually only sacrifice
when doing so benefits the groups with which one identifies him or herself. A solution, Beck
argues, is to expand what most people consider as their in-group to encompass the whole of
humanity. If one perceives him or herself primarily as a member of the human race instead of
primarily as a member of a nation, culture, or ethnicity, one will be more circumspect when
making attributions and deciding loyalties and will be more disposed to helping others and
Cognitions and Comprehension
9
participating in self-sacrifice. According to Beck, in order to restrain violence, human life in
general must be valued above all other values: "If the value of human life overshadows one's
political or social ideology, it is more difficult to carry out harmful behavior" (p. 240).
But, are we really capable of doing so? Beck himself argues that we have an evolutionary
inheritance which makes our cognitions automatically biased and erroneous. However, Beck is
convinced of the power of the rational mind. He avows:
We are not enslaved by our personal history or by evolution-derived patterns of thinking.
We are endowed with the capacity for mature and flexible thinking, which allows for
reflection and judgment and can supersede the primitive primal thinking. This kind of
reflection…can have the disadvantage of being slower and requiring more effort....Taking
perspective gets easier in time and provides a foundation for constructive problem
solving and a more tranquil life. (p. 86)
As one way to obtain this personal enlightenment, Beck suggests we adopt the exercise of
distancing: “Distancing oneself from one's self-centered perspective depends on accepting the
principle that although one's perspective feels real and legitimate, it could be biased or even
totally wrong. Having acknowledged the possible fallibility of his perspective, a person can step
back and raise questions about its validity” (p. 231). Through consistent practice, it is possible to
live a life characterized by meta-cognition. By thinking about our own thoughts, we can realize
their specious nature and be more discreet in our interpretations of others’ actions (whether
groups or individuals). In fact, this is what Beck attempts to do in therapy.
But how can this apply on a global scale? Is it possible to raise the world’s
consciousness? Beck argues that, similar to descending back into Plato’s cave after seeing the
sun, therapists and enlightened individuals should use their understanding of human cognition to
Cognitions and Comprehension
10
intervene in and prevent hostility and violence. According to Beck, “Political and social
programs need to take into account the way that pernicious ideologies exploit the propensity for
biased beliefs, distorted thinking, and malevolent images to bind their adherents together and
make enemies of outsiders and dissidents” (p. 229). It is the responsibility of sociologists,
psychologists, politicians, and political theorists to work together to create community and
international programs to raise the global consciousness or at least to assuage enmity between
individuals, groups, and nations by using cognitive restructuring enmasse.
An Evaluation of the Book’s Personal Usefulness
With all activities in life, I believe it is imperative to slow down and ask the question, “Is
this activity worth doing? It is useful to me and my personal priorities?” I applied this same
question to my reading of Beck’s book; my answer was, “yes,” on both counts. I found Beck’s
book worth reading—it was enlightening as well as engaging. I also found it personally useful in
several ways, specifically: it provided a valuable theory of conflict that I can utilize in
psychotherapy, negotiations and conflict management, and community and international policy
and relations.
Given that my personal career direction is, as of this point in my life, somewhat
ambiguous, it is difficult to delineate precisely where and how I will utilize Prisoners of Hate
professionally. However, on a very general level, it has provided me with a basis by which to
analyze and diagnose interpersonal and international conflict. Beck’s work has the potential to be
extremely valuable to the world as a whole, and I can begin to utilize his theory in my life to
inform my decisions about my interactions with others and to help me be a “peace-maker” for
other individuals or groups. I could do so in either a clinical or lay capacity.
Cognitions and Comprehension
11
Since conflict management is one of my areas of interest and a potential career path, I can
use Beck’s theory of hostility to inform my work. First, it will help me to understand the nature
of conflict and how conflict can escalate to the point of violence and enable me to educate and
depolarize the belligerent parties. Second, I will be able, hopefully, to identify potential problems
before they begin and act proactively in order to prevent a conflict from developing.
If my professional life takes a more sociological turn and I find myself in the political or
social policy realm, Beck’s theory of conflict will be a basis not only for decision making but
also for research. Beck suggests the importance of conducting interdisciplinary research on his
theory and to verify its concepts as well as, if verified, to find the best ways to circumvent
cognitive biases before they become problematic.
Comparisons to Other Systems of Psychotherapy
Client-Centered Therapy
Beck’s Cognitive Therapy (BCT) and Rogers’s Client-Centered Therapy (RCCT) are
different in more ways than they are similar. I think the prevailing similarity between Beck’s and
Rogers’s theories is their consistent focus on the present—the here and now. Both therapists are
reluctant to visit stories about past problems and memories and believe that the solution to the
client’s presenting problem is found in the present. However, BCT and RCCT are disparate in
two aspects: their view of human nature and the nature of the therapeutic relationship. According
to Prochaska and Norcross (2007), RCCT views humans as fundamentally good and capable of
automatic potential achievement given the right set of circumstances. The therapist’s job is solely
to provide those circumstances. Therefore, the therapeutic relationship centers around
unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence. BCT views humans as inherently
neither good nor bad; however, humans are seen to have automatic cognitive processes inherited
Cognitions and Comprehension
12
by evolution that tend to cause errors in cognition which lead to many of the problematic
behaviors encountered in today’s society. Therefore, in a very basic way, BCT views humans as
fundamentally flawed. This flaw is not morally weighted; it is simply a result of nature. The
therapeutic relationship in BCT is essentially a teaching one—the therapist relates to the client in
an enlightened (but not haughty) way in order to facilitate the client’s adoption of a more rational
cognitive system.
Freud’s Psychoanalysis
Although seeming completely different, Freud’s Psychoanalysis (FP) and BCT are very
similar. Their respective views on the nature of humanity are quite parallel. According to
Prochaska and Norcross (2007), FP posits that humans have an inherent instinct for aggression;
therefore, people need to control that natural instinct through socially appropriate expressions.
Similarly, BCT sees humanity as having a natural tendency toward aggression; however, this
tendency is a result of our genetic endowment as opposed to an intrapsychic id. Also, BCT
believes that this aggressive tendency can be altered (rather than sublimated) through
consciousness raising via relying on empirical and rational cognitions rather than irrational ones.
Beck (1999) suggests that his notion of primal thinking is quite similar to Freud’s “primary
process thinking” in that they both operate at the unconscious level and usually are employed in
times of distress or anxiety.
The therapeutic relationship present in FP and BCT is quite different, however. FP prides
therapists on being dispassionate, “blank screens” upon which clients project their infantile
impulses (Prochaska & Norcross, 2007). The therapist then can analyze and attempt to provide
the client with insight into why they behave the way they do. Although a cognitive therapist also
attempts to enlighten the client’s self-understanding, he or she does so in a far more directive
Cognitions and Comprehension
13
fashion. A cognitive therapist will teach, probe, and challenge client beliefs as well as assign
homework and utilize behavioral techniques in order to obtain meaningful improvement in a
client (Prochaska & Norcross, 2007).
Adlerian Therapy
I chose to compare BCT with Adlerian Therapy (AT) in order to equate their respective
appeals for social interest. Beck (1999) argues that many of humanity’s negative behaviors are
reactions compensating for threats or injuries to self-esteem. Adler argues that all behavior is a
function of a striving for superiority in order to compensate for feelings of inferiority (Prochaska
& Norcross, 2007). This behavior can either take a socially constructive or destructive form. The
ideal individual in Adlerian therapy is characterized by genuine social interest (Prochaska &
Norcross, 2007). This social interest is parallel to Beck’s insistence in Prisoners of Hate to value
others. At the center of both theories is the belief that, in order to effect lasting positive change in
a client, a therapist must impact the client’s belief system or philosophy of life. Neither theory is
satisfied with the superficial removal of problematic symptoms, and they both attempt to teach
the client a new way of thinking about how to interact with the world.
Research Support
For the purposes of this paper, I will focus my analysis of the relevant research on Beck’s
cognitive therapy as it relates to the problem analyzed in Prisoners of Hate, i.e., violence and
hostility.
Although the research presented in Prochaska and Norcross’s (2007) chapter on cognitive
therapy was related to cognitive-behavior therapy in general, it is still advantageous to note some
of its conclusions. Specifically, studies on the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy on
domestic violence reveal its impact was quite small—only equal to that of getting arrested.
Cognitions and Comprehension
14
However, the small effect size was true for all other therapy methods included in Prochaska and
Norcross’s research summary. For general marital therapy, cognitive therapy resulted in
significant improvements over untreated couples, but provided no additional impact over that
obtained through other therapeutic means (Prochaska & Norcross, 2007).
Beck (1999) provides some research supporting his theory of conflict in chapter 14,
Perspectives and Prospects. Most the research is aimed at proving the cognitive theory of
hostility rather than proving the efficacy of a therapeutic model. According to Beck’s review of
the literature, much support has been found on the interpersonal level of conflict (including
populations such as juvenile criminals, violent males, college graduates, and child abusers). Of
course, all of the research he presents is favorable, and none of the research is aimed at proving
the effectiveness of cognitive therapy over some other type of therapy.
On the group or national level, research is just beginning. In fact, Beck limns several
possible directions for social research. Some authors have, independently of Beck, examined
world events like the holocaust in order to understand the processes that enable human beings to
commit mass-murder. These writers have rationally derived some very similar conclusions. Of
note, Lifton’s (1986) interviews with some of the notorious Nazi “doctors” as well as insider
accounts by survivors of the concentration camps (see Levi, 1996, and Frankl, 1984) lend
support to Beck’s conclusion that framing the enemy as sub- or in-human as well as placing the
responsibility for personal acts of violence onto one’s leaders (“I was just following orders.”) are
necessary preconditions for mass-murder. However, much more research needs to be done to
understand what mechanisms operate across all levels of intergroup and international conflict
and how analogous they are to current or evolving understandings of interpersonal conflict.
Cognitions and Comprehension
15
Conclusion
Valuing the ability to criticize one’s own thinking and the understanding that the meaning
we assign to external events determines our reactions to them is not a philosophically new
concept. Plato, Socrates, and the Stoics, as well as other thinkers, have taught these messages to
their students. Beck takes these ideas and cogently analyzes them to create a psychological
theory. In doing so, he crosses from the realm of the purely rational to the scientifically
empirical. But Beck does not stop there; he takes his psychological theory and applies it to
society as a whole, providing a psychological sociology—a means by which both the
praiseworthy and the vile behaviors of humanity can be comprehended.
Moreover, I agree with Beck in that even though understanding human behavior is
valuable in itself, the ultimate goal of such understanding should be the creation of a more
equable and agreeable society. Most of the impact of cognitive theory has been, to date, limited
to the clinician’s office; however, there abundant potential for positive change on an
international scale. The power of the rational mind is the core of that potential. Although
primarily irrational from birth, humanity has the functional capacity to overcome the errors that
plague our interpretations and our interactions. As Beck states,
In the final analysis, we have to depend on our rich resources of rationality to recognize
and modify our irrationality. The ‘voice of reason’ is not necessarily quiet is we use
appropriate methods to amplify it. We can recognize that our own interests are best
served by applying reason. In this way, we can help to provide a better life for ourselves,
others, and the future children of the world. (p. 287)
By understanding how we think, we can change our thinking and truly understand.
Cognitions and Comprehension
16
References
Beck, A. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and violence. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Levi, P. (1996). Survival in Auschwitz. New York: Touchstone.
Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New
York: Basic Books.
Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2007). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis
(6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.