How
Did Voldemort Do It?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/80f71/80f7156abd85ecc17f29090c337097dc2ceaab30" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c8bbb/c8bbb22bd2d6451f673d02488163625069d37564" alt=""
Lord Voldemort used a fair few
persuasive techniques (other than the Imperious Curse, of course). The most
notable technique he employed was the ingroup/outgroup technique, in which he
created in groups of wizards against muggles. Within the wizard ingroup, he
created more circles of in-groups: purebloods vs half-bloods and muggle-borns,
death eaters vs everyone else. Within the ingroup/outgroup technique, Voldemort
intertwined similarity and the power of authority pressure to get people to do
his bidding.
The ingroup/outgroup technique
is responsible for innumerable instances of persuasion. So, how does it work? A
meta-analysis by Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton and Hume (2001) investigated the
effect of high or low status on in-group/outgroup biases. In Voldemort’s case,
the high status group would be pure-bloods, and the low status group would be
half-bloods or muggle-borns. The meta-analysis showed that members of high
status groups showed stronger biases: they viewed the in group to which they
belonged as more positive and the corresponding outgroup significantly more
negatively. Low status groups showed the same biases, but to a weaker degree.
I.e. the muggle-borns and half-bloods were less biased against the pure-bloods
than were the pure-bloods against the muggle-borns and half-bloods (the
pure-bloods were meaner). The study also shows that members of high status
groups (the pure-bloods) identify better and more easily with other members of
their group than members of low-status groups do (the half-bloods and
muggle-borns).
The table above shows the effect
of perceived vs real status differences, and the effect that these have on
ingroup/outgroup biases both between and within groups.
Voldemort was able to successful
persuade people to kill each other, to terrify other people into killing each
other, and to hunt a 17 year old boy mercilessly because of how well he
convinced people of the ingroup/outgroup divide. Both groups identified with
either their high or low status, and that created a shift in the perception of
power and strength; instead members of both groups realising they were as
powerful as each other, the high status groups believed they were more
powerful, a more legitimate authority. Their conviction in such beliefs allowed
for the ingroup/outgroup divide to grow stronger and to start insidiously
convincing the low status group (muggle-borns, half-bloods) that they had less
power to yield, making them more vulnerable to persecution.
Status differences
and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status
stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability (2001). Bettencourt, B.
Ann; Charlton, Kelly; Dorr, Nancy; Hume, Deborah L. Psychological Bulletin 12, 4 520-542.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.