6.6 Focus on Psychological Research – Psychological, Neurological, and Enduring Impacts of Genocide
Common Psychological Consequences of Genocide
Given the unfathomable violence and incalculable loss of life that characterizes genocide and “ethnic cleansing”, it is inordinately difficult to characterize, study, and measure psychological and emotional impacts. They are no doubt profound, severe, and not well captured by conventional psychological disorders or constructs. Though victims are likely to experience pronounced and protracted depression, PTSD, and functional impairment for the rest of their days, the magnitude and horror of such events defy easy description and evaluation. Moreover, perpetrators of large scale atrocity – especially those who perceive themselves to have been compelled or coerced into egregious acts by virtue of military command or threat to their own safety – are likely to be haunted by guilt, shame, and “moral injury” (Litz et al., 2009) the rest of their days. All of these outcomes are intuitive even if they fall short of capturing the tragedy of genocide. To shed light on more far-reaching – and perhaps disturbing – consequences of genocide, the psychological research study below considers the impact of genocide on empathy towards similar and dissimilar others, the neurological correlates of these impacts, and the degree to which they persist across generations.
Do Genocide Survivors and Perpetrators and Their Unexposed Offspring Exhibit Enduring Empathy Deficits? Can Reconciliation Between Survivors and Perpetrators Improve These Impacts?
In a fascinating study by Caspar, Pech, Gishoma & Kanazayire (2022), researchers sought to answer whether exposure to or participation in genocide impacts empathic responding to the pain of others – especially dissimilar others – decades after the conflict. Further, this study evaluated whether observed empathy deficits were shared by children of survivors of genocide who had no direct exposure to the atrocities. The answers to these questions have tremendous implications for continued, multigenerational violence and ethnic and political strife. The researchers were also curious as to whether voluntary participation in “reconciliation villages” – a context in which survivors and perpetrators live side by side and that requires taking responsibility for violence, seeking forgiveness, and engaging in reparative action – could mitigate these impacts. Lastly, the investigators hoped to identify neural correlates of empathy deficits and biases to understanding lasting neurological impacts of genocide.
Neuroscientists often measure the degree of activation in brain regions involved in pain experience when participants witness the pain of others to gauge empathic responding. In the case of empathy for pain, seeing another individual in pain triggers an empathic response in the brain of the observer. Importantly, when the individual experiencing pain is perceived as an “outgroup” member (based on ethnical, religious, or political differences), the neural empathic response is attenuated for the observer. This is referred to as the intergroup empathy bias and is likely to be especially prominent when the “outgroup” in question is made up of one’s aggressors and perpetrators.
In the study by Caspar et al. conducted in Rwanda (2022), the researchers “investigated how the neural empathic response varies between former perpetrators and victims of the genocide and their children when they visualized former perpetrators or victims, or their offspring, receiving painful or nonpainful stimulations. Investigators studied approximately 40 individuals drawn from each of the following four populations: genocide perpetrators, children of perpetrators, genocide survivors, and children of survivors. Among other stimuli, participants viewed pictures of purported perpetrators or survivors having hands cut by a knife or axe by another individual. Participants were asked to estimate the pain experienced by those having their hands cut and their neural activity was measured by EEG. Results showed that “the intergroup empathy bias—that is, a reduced neural response to the pain of the outgroup—is present for both individuals alive during the genocide and their offspring. We also observed that a higher number of stressors experienced during the genocide was associated with a higher reduction of the neural response to the pain of others, even toward the children of one’s own ingroup.” In short, even decades after the Rwandan genocide, diminished empathy for the pain and suffering of others persists, is neurologically mediated, and is true even for children of those directly impacted – speaking to the potential for continued suffering and violence. Importantly and encouragingly, individuals who were voluntarily involved in reconciliation villages did not fully exhibit these empathy deficits suggesting that formal accountability, amends making, and forgiveness-seeking can indeed promote healing and increase empathy to the suffering of others – key ingredients to the prevention of multigenerational sectarian or ethnic violence.
