Executive Summary

This report validates the hypothesis that non-verbal, verbal, and physical violence are fundamentally interconnected, existing on a spectrum of aggression rather than as discrete phenomena. It begins by establishing a comprehensive taxonomy of violence—from non-verbal intimidation and verbal abuse to a continuum of physical harm—and presents psychological evidence demonstrating that these forms are linked, with verbal aggression often serving as a direct predictor of physical escalation.

The report critically examines foundational frameworks for understanding this progression, including Gordon Allport's Scale of Prejudice, the Anti-Defamation League's Pyramid of Hate, and Liz Kelly's Continuum of Violence. While acknowledging their significant contributions, it identifies limitations in their linearity, specificity of focus, and the balance between individual and systemic factors, thereby establishing the need for a more dynamic and integrated model.

To explain the transition from individual prejudice to collective violence, the report details the social-psychological "engine of escalation." This includes the amplifying effects of group dynamics, the power of social identity to create "us vs. them" dichotomies, and the cognitive mechanisms of moral neutralization—such as "othering," dehumanization, and moral disengagement—that allow perpetrators to overcome inhibitions against harming others. The role of charismatic leadership in activating and directing these forces is identified as a critical catalyst.

Building on this analysis, the report proposes a new, integrated paradigm: The Violence Cascade Framework. This two-dimensional model maps the escalating intensity of violent acts (Non-Verbal, Verbal, Physical) against the expanding scale of their social acceptance (Individual, Group, Societal/Institutional). Its central thesis is that the normalization of "lesser" forms of violence at a broad social level enables the eruption of more severe violence. The framework's utility is demonstrated by applying it to the historical escalation of the Holocaust.

Finally, the report outlines strategic implications for prevention and de-escalation. Based on the logic of the cascade, it recommends proactive interventions targeted at the foundational levels of bias and societal normalization. Key strategies include educational programming, strengthening legal frameworks against hate speech and discrimination, promoting bystander intervention, holding leadership accountable for their rhetoric, and fostering cross-cutting identities to weaken intergroup divisions. The overarching conclusion is that preventing mass atrocity requires a societal commitment to confronting the architecture of hate at its earliest and most subtle stages.

Part I: The Unified Nature of Violence

The study of human violence has often been fragmented, treating a threatening gesture, a hateful slur, and a physical assault as distinct and separate phenomena. This report challenges that fragmentation. It posits and validates the hypothesis that all forms of violence—non-verbal, verbal, and physical—are fundamentally interconnected, existing on a spectrum of aggression and control. They are not discrete categories but rather different manifestations of the same underlying intent to diminish, intimidate, or harm. This section establishes the foundational premise of this report: that violence is a unified phenomenon. It begins by creating a comprehensive taxonomy of violent behaviors to illustrate their overlaps and interdependencies. It then presents the psychological evidence that confirms the deep-seated connection between these forms, demonstrating that the progression from non-verbal intimidation to verbal abuse and, ultimately, to physical harm is not an arbitrary escalation but a predictable and psychologically coherent pathway. By understanding violence as a single, multifaceted construct, we can begin to analyze the mechanisms that drive its escalation from the individual to the collective sphere.

Section 1: A Taxonomy of Harm: Defining the Spectrum of Violence

To comprehend the interconnectedness of violence, it is first necessary to establish a clear and comprehensive taxonomy of its various forms. Violence is not limited to acts of physical battery; it encompasses a wide range of behaviors designed to exert power, instill fear, and strip individuals of their autonomy. These behaviors exist on a spectrum, with porous boundaries between categories. Non-verbal cues, verbal assaults, and physical acts often co-occur, reinforcing one another to create an environment of coercion and control.1 This unified understanding reveals that the core function of violence, regardless of its form, is the limitation of another's self-determination.3

1.1 Non-Verbal Violence: The Language of Threat and Intimidation

Non-verbal violence comprises a range of actions and behaviors that communicate threat, disrespect, and control without the use of words. These acts are not passive or incidental; they are active and deliberate communications intended to create an environment of fear, degradation, and psychological distress. They often serve as precursors or accompaniments to verbal and physical violence, signaling a perpetrator's intent and capacity for harm.

One of the most direct forms of non-verbal violence involves the use of gestures and facial expressions. These can include graphic sexual gestures, such as simulating sexual acts with hands or body movements, which are designed to be demeaning and inappropriate.4 Other examples include sexually suggestive facial expressions like winking, licking lips, or throwing kisses, which convey a sexualized message and foster an uncomfortable atmosphere.4 Staring, leering, or looking a person up and down—often referred to as "elevator eyes"—objectifies the target, causing them to feel violated and uneasy.4 Threatening gestures, such as clenching fists or mimicking the use of a weapon, are explicit non-verbal threats that directly communicate the potential for physical harm.7

Another critical dimension of non-verbal violence is spatial and environmental control. This involves the manipulation of physical space to intimidate and dominate a victim. Behaviors such as stalking, following, or loitering near a person's home or workplace are designed to create a persistent sense of anxiety and unease.1 Invading an individual's personal space by intentionally standing or sitting too close is a violation of physical boundaries that can make a person feel unsafe.4 In more extreme cases, a perpetrator may physically prevent a person from leaving a room or force them to go somewhere against their will, asserting complete control over their freedom of movement.1 This demonstrates that the control over physical space is, in itself, a potent form of violence.

Finally, symbolic aggression constitutes a powerful form of non-verbal violence where actions against objects or property serve as a proxy for direct physical harm to a person. This includes acts like smashing or throwing objects, punching walls, or kicking doors.1 Such displays are not random outbursts of anger but calculated acts of intimidation, designed to demonstrate the perpetrator's capacity for violence and create an atmosphere of fear. Handling guns or other weapons in a threatening manner in front of someone serves a similar purpose, acting as an implicit threat of severe harm.8 Similarly, damaging or destroying a person's work product or personal property is an attack on their identity and security, communicating hostility and the potential for further escalation.7 These symbolic acts powerfully convey the perpetrator's willingness to inflict physical harm without yet crossing that threshold, making them a critical component of coercive control.

1.2 Verbal Violence: The Weaponization of Words

Verbal violence, encompassing both spoken and written language, is a form of psychological abuse that attacks an individual's self-worth, emotional stability, and sense of safety.9 It is a direct weaponization of communication, used to control, humiliate, and intimidate. Far from being harmless, verbal violence inflicts significant psychological damage and is a critical intermediate stage in the escalation toward physical conflict. Its forms range from overt assaults to sophisticated methods of psychological manipulation.

Direct verbal assaults are the most recognizable form of this violence. This category includes behaviors such as name-calling, insults, and the use of derogatory or offensive terms intended to belittle and degrade a person.1 Yelling and screaming are used to create an intimidating and chaotic environment, leaving the victim in a state of constant anxiety.1 Ridiculing a person's beliefs, appearance, skills, or background is a targeted attack on their identity and self-esteem.8 Furthermore, explicit threats of harm against the victim, their loved ones, or their pets represent a direct and terrifying form of verbal violence that bridges the gap between psychological and physical intimidation.1 These overt attacks are not simply features of a heated argument; they are calculated assaults on a person's fundamental sense of value and security.

Beyond direct assaults, verbal violence includes more insidious forms of psychological manipulation. These tactics are designed to erode a victim's sense of reality and autonomy. Gaslighting is a particularly destructive technique where an abuser makes the victim question their own sanity, memory, and perceptions.1 This is achieved by denying past events, questioning the victim's recollection of facts, trivializing their feelings, or pretending not to understand them.1 The goal of gaslighting is to destabilize the victim to such an extent that they become more dependent on the abuser, unable to trust their own judgment.12 Other manipulative tactics include

minimization, where an abuser downplays the severity of their actions to make the situation seem insignificant, and blame-shifting, where the abuser constantly puts the blame for their own actions onto the victim, refusing to take responsibility.9 These sophisticated forms of verbal abuse are profoundly damaging, as they attack the victim's cognitive and emotional foundations.

A specific and highly consequential form of verbal violence is hate speech. This is defined as verbal attacks that target individuals or entire groups based on protected characteristics such as religion, culture, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.10 Hate speech can take many forms, including jokes, slurs, threats, the spreading of rumors, or incitement to violence, and is often disseminated through public forums, including the internet.10 The explicit aim of hate speech is to humiliate, dehumanize, and instill fear in a targeted group.10 This form of verbal violence is particularly dangerous because it explicitly links individual expressions of prejudice to broader, collective harm. By framing an entire group as inferior or threatening, hate speech lays the ideological groundwork for discrimination, physical attacks, and, in its most extreme manifestation, genocide.13 It is the mechanism by which individual animosity is transformed into a collective political weapon.

1.3 Physical Violence: The Continuum of Bodily Harm

Physical violence represents the most overt and widely recognized form of harm, involving any act that attempts to cause or results in bodily pain or injury.3 However, it is a mistake to view physical violence as a monolithic category. Instead, it exists on a spectrum of severity, ranging from acts that cause minor pain and intimidation to those that result in severe injury, permanent disability, or death. Every point on this spectrum serves the perpetrator's ultimate goal: to assert dominance, enforce control, and limit the victim's self-determination through the violation of their physical being.3 The progression along this spectrum often follows an escalatory pattern, where the acceptance of "lesser" forms of physical violence normalizes the use of more extreme force over time.15

The lower end of the spectrum can be characterized as "slight" to "moderate" physical violence. These acts, while less likely to cause life-threatening injury, are nonetheless serious violations that establish a dangerous precedent of physical control. Examples include scratching, pushing, shoving, slapping, and pinching.1 This category also includes actions such as pulling a person's hair, forcibly grabbing their clothing, or throwing objects like a phone or a plate at them.1 While these actions may not always leave visible, lasting marks, their primary function is to intimidate and to demonstrate that the perpetrator is willing and able to cross the line into physical contact. They shatter the victim's sense of physical safety and create a constant state of fear, conditioning them to comply with the abuser's demands to avoid further physical encounters. The societal tendency to minimize these acts as "not that serious" ignores their critical role in the cycle of escalating violence.

The upper end of the spectrum encompasses "extreme" physical violence, which involves acts with a high potential for causing severe bodily harm, permanent damage, or death. This category includes behaviors such as punching, kicking, biting, choking, and strangulation.1 The use of objects or weapons—including knives, guns, bats, or any other instrument—to threaten or inflict injury falls squarely within this classification.1 Burning, maiming, and murder represent the ultimate expressions of physical violence, where the intent is to cause maximum suffering, permanent disfigurement, or the termination of life.3 These acts are the culmination of the escalatory process, representing the final and most brutal assertion of power and control over another human being. They are not isolated incidents of rage but are often the logical conclusion of a pattern of abuse that began with non-verbal intimidation and verbal threats, progressively eroding the victim's autonomy and the perpetrator's inhibitions.

1.4 Intersectional and Systemic Forms of Violence

A complete taxonomy of violence must extend beyond the interpersonal to include forms of harm that are systemic, structural, and intersectional. These forms of violence are often less direct but can be equally devastating, creating conditions of control, coercion, and vulnerability that are deeply intertwined with non-verbal, verbal, and physical abuse. They demonstrate how violence operates not just between individuals but through societal structures and modern technologies.

Financial and economic abuse is a powerful method of control that operates by restricting a victim's access to resources, thereby creating dependency and limiting their ability to leave an abusive situation. This form of violence includes a range of coercive behaviors, such as giving a victim a restrictive allowance, monitoring all of their purchases, or depositing their paycheck into an account they cannot access.1 Perpetrators may forbid their partner from working or limit their hours, and in some cases, actively sabotage their employment by harassing them or their employer.1 Other tactics include incurring large debts in the victim's name, maxing out their credit cards without permission, or stealing their financial aid or other sources of support.1 By stripping the victim of financial autonomy, the abuser ensures that the victim is economically trapped, making this a critical and often invisible component of a broader strategy of domination.

In the modern era, technology-facilitated abuse has emerged as a pervasive extension of traditional forms of violence. It involves the use of technologies like mobile phones, social media, and tracking devices to bully, harass, stalk, and intimidate.1 This is often a digital manifestation of verbal and emotional abuse, conducted online to exert control.1 Examples include constant monitoring or "checking in" via excessive texting, hacking into a partner's email and social media accounts, and demanding passwords.1 Perpetrators may use GPS tracking devices in a partner's phone or car to monitor their location at all times.15 Furthermore, online platforms can be used to humiliate a victim by spreading rumors, posting private photos or information without consent (a practice known as "doxing" or revenge porn), or using online communities to intimidate them.1 This demonstrates how modern tools are readily co-opted to amplify age-old tactics of control and psychological warfare.

Finally, institutional violence refers to the harm perpetrated by systems, organizations, and societal structures. This occurs when institutions such as legal, medical, corporate, or governmental bodies employ attitudes, policies, or practices that marginalize, neglect, or harm vulnerable individuals.19 Examples include the systemic denial of services, such as when police officers exhibit racist or offensive behavior toward victims or when family courts fail to recognize domestic violence.19 In healthcare, it can manifest as obstetric violence against pregnant women or the neglect of patients in underfunded state hospitals.21 Institutional violence also occurs when an organization responds to a complaint of abuse by covering it up, silencing the survivor, or retaliating against them, a phenomenon known as "Double Abuse®".20 This form of violence is particularly insidious because it is sanctioned, implicitly or explicitly, by structures of authority, thereby legitimizing the harm and leaving victims with little recourse.23 It connects individual acts of violence to the broader societal norms and power structures that permit and perpetuate them.

Section 2: The Psychological Nexus: Validating the Interconnection

The hypothesis that non-verbal, verbal, and physical violence are fundamentally interconnected is not merely a conceptual assertion; it is strongly supported by a body of psychological research that examines the nature of human aggression. This research provides a robust validation of the continuum model by demonstrating that different forms of aggressive behavior stem from common psychological roots and often follow a predictable escalatory path. Verbal aggression, in particular, is not a separate or lesser form of harm but a direct and reliable predictor of physical violence, especially within intimate relationships.

Psychological theory defines aggression as a unified construct, a range of behaviors intended to cause either physical or psychological harm to another person, oneself, or an object.24 This broad definition inherently rejects a rigid separation between different forms of violence. Instead, it places behaviors like mocking, name-calling, and yelling (verbal) on the same conceptual spectrum as hitting, kicking, and stabbing (physical).25 Both are understood as expressions of the same underlying intent to hurt or assert dominance. This unified view is critical because it frames the various manifestations of violence not as different types of problems, but as different intensities of the same problem. Research into aggressive behavior shows that it can be driven by a variety of factors, including biological predispositions and environmental learning, but the intent to cause harm remains the central, unifying feature.25

Within this unified framework, verbal aggression often functions as a gateway to physical violence. Studies on intimate partner violence (IPV) provide compelling evidence for this pathway. Research indicates that psychological IPV, which is characterized by acts of expressive aggression such as verbal hostility, threats, and insults, is present in virtually all physically aggressive relationships.26 While the majority of psychologically aggressive couples do not become physically violent, the presence of physical violence is almost always preceded by and coexists with a pattern of verbal and emotional abuse.26 This establishes a clear directional relationship: sustained verbal aggression normalizes hostility within a relationship, erodes inhibitions against causing harm, and creates a psychological environment where the threshold for physical violence is significantly lowered. The question, therefore, is not

if these forms of violence are linked, but rather under what conditions verbal aggression escalates into physical acts.

The link between different forms of aggression is further solidified by the identification of shared emotional drivers. Research on trait aggression indicates that core emotions, particularly anger and hostility, are the primary predictors for all subtypes of aggression, including physical, verbal, and relational forms.27 This suggests that a common emotional engine powers these different violent expressions. An individual with high levels of underlying anger and hostility is more likely to manifest that aggression across multiple domains. This finding refutes the notion that verbal and physical abusers are fundamentally different types of people; rather, they are often the same people expressing a common underlying aggressive impulse through different modalities, depending on the situation, their inhibitions, and the perceived consequences.

Crucially, the escalation from verbal to physical violence is not random but is predictable based on specific moderating factors. The relationship is not absolute but is significantly influenced by both interpersonal skills and external pressures. A key study on IPV found that two factors independently and strongly predicted which psychologically aggressive couples would also become physically violent: the quality of their communication and their level of socioeconomic disadvantage.26 Couples who displayed lower-quality communication—characterized by more negativity, less positivity, and less effective problem-solving—were significantly more likely to see verbal aggression covary with physical violence. Similarly, couples facing higher levels of socioeconomic stress (e.g., unemployment, poverty) also showed a stronger link between verbal and physical aggression.26

This evidence is profound. It demonstrates that the pathway from verbal to physical violence is not inevitable but is a process that can be either accelerated or inhibited by specific, identifiable conditions. It validates the interconnectedness of all forms of violence by showing they are part of a single, dynamic system. The presence of verbal abuse is a definitive red flag, and its likelihood of escalating to physical harm can be assessed based on the presence of these moderating factors. This provides a clear, evidence-based foundation for understanding violence not as a series of discrete events, but as a coherent and often predictable process of escalation.

Part II: Frameworks of Escalation

To understand how violence progresses from subtle biases to overt atrocities, scholars and practitioners have developed several conceptual models. These frameworks provide a theoretical lens through which to analyze the stages of escalation, the relationship between different forms of harm, and the societal conditions that enable violence. This section critically examines three foundational models: Gordon Allport's psychological Scale of Prejudice and Discrimination, the Anti-Defamation League's sociological Pyramid of Hate, and Liz Kelly's feminist Continuum of Violence. Each model offers unique and powerful insights into the nature of escalating violence. However, each also possesses limitations in scope or structure. By analyzing their respective strengths and weaknesses, this section builds a compelling case for the development of a new, integrated framework that synthesizes the most potent elements of these foundational theories into a more comprehensive and dynamic paradigm.

Section 3: Foundational Models of Escalation: Mapping the Path to Violence

The progression from prejudiced thought to violent action has been mapped by several influential frameworks. These models, originating from different academic disciplines, provide structured ways to understand how seemingly minor acts of bias can create the conditions for systemic discrimination and, ultimately, mass violence. Analyzing these foundational models—Allport's Scale, the Pyramid of Hate, and the Continuum of Violence—reveals the common principles of escalation while also highlighting their distinct theoretical underpinnings and areas of focus.

3.1 Allport's Scale of Prejudice and Discrimination (1954)

Developed by psychologist Gordon Allport, this foundational model provides a linear, five-stage framework that depicts the escalating manifestation of prejudice in a society.28 Allport's Scale is significant for its explicit argument that verbal expressions of prejudice are not benign but are the first step on a path toward extreme violence. The scale progresses as follows:

1. Antilocution: This initial stage involves "speaking against" an out-group. It includes derogatory jokes, negative stereotyping, and hate speech.28 Allport argued that while antilocution may be seen as harmless by the majority, it is psychologically crucial because it "sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice" by normalizing negative attitudes and harming the self-esteem of the targeted group.28 This stage establishes the ideological foundation for subsequent actions.

2. Avoidance: In this stage, prejudice moves from speech to behavior. Members of the in-group actively avoid members of the out-group, leading to social exclusion and isolation.28 While direct physical harm may not be intended, this stage inflicts psychological harm and reinforces the "otherness" of the targeted group, making further discrimination easier to justify.30

3. Discrimination: Here, prejudice is put into concrete action to disadvantage the out-group. This involves denying them opportunities in areas such as employment, housing, education, and political rights.28 Discrimination institutionalizes prejudice, creating systemic barriers that are intended to harm the out-group's ability to thrive. Historical examples include the Jim Crow laws in the United States and the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany.28

4. Physical Attack: As prejudice intensifies and inhibitions erode, it can escalate to direct violence against the out-group's members and property. This stage includes vandalism, arson, assault, and murder, often referred to as hate crimes.28 Examples include lynchings and pogroms.28

5. Extermination: This is the ultimate and most extreme manifestation of prejudice, where the in-group seeks the systematic elimination of the out-group through acts such as genocide and ethnic cleansing.28

Allport's Scale provides a clear, psychologically grounded progression, powerfully illustrating how the normalization of verbal prejudice creates a permissive environment for the escalation of harmful actions.

3.2 The Pyramid of Hate (Anti-Defamation League)

The Pyramid of Hate, developed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), is a sociological and educational tool that visualizes the escalation of hate in a hierarchical structure.31 Its core concept is that the most extreme forms of violence are not spontaneous events but are built upon and supported by a foundation of widespread, socially accepted biases and prejudices.32 If the behaviors at the lower levels are treated as "normal" or acceptable, they provide the structural support for the behaviors at the next level to become more accepted.32 The levels of the pyramid are:

1. Biased Attitudes (Base of the Pyramid): This foundational level includes stereotypes, insensitive remarks, fear of differences, microaggressions, and non-inclusive language.33 These attitudes are often subconscious and passed on from a young age.31 The pyramid's structure emphasizes that these seemingly minor biases are the necessary groundwork for all subsequent levels of hate.

2. Acts of Bias: Building on biased attitudes, this level involves individual actions such as bullying, ridicule, name-calling, slurs, social avoidance, and dehumanization.31 These acts translate internal biases into external behaviors that target individuals.

3. Systemic Discrimination: When individual acts of bias become widespread and unchecked, they can coalesce into systemic discrimination. This level involves policies and practices within institutions—such as in housing, employment, and the legal system—that are designed to subjugate and disadvantage entire groups of people.31

4. Bias-Motivated Violence: This level marks the transition to physical harm. It includes acts of violence against people and property, such as assault, arson, terrorism, and murder, all motivated by prejudice against the target's group identity.31

5. Genocide (Apex of the Pyramid): The highest level of the pyramid is genocide, the deliberate and systematic annihilation of an entire people.31 The model powerfully argues that this "unthinkable" act is only possible because it is supported by the normalization and acceptance of all the preceding levels of hate.32

The Pyramid of Hate's primary strength is its visual metaphor, which clearly communicates how societal tolerance for "small" acts of prejudice creates the necessary conditions for large-scale atrocities.

3.3 The Continuum of Violence (Liz Kelly, 1988)

Developed from a feminist perspective by scholar Liz Kelly, the Continuum of Violence offers a non-linear and non-hierarchical framework for understanding violence against women and girls (VAWG).36 Unlike the previous models, this framework rejects a simple, tiered progression of severity. Instead, it argues that all forms of gender-based violence are interconnected expressions of deep-rooted patriarchal norms, male entitlement, and socially sanctioned aggression.36

The core argument of the Continuum of Violence is that extreme and criminalized acts, such as "stranger" rape, are not deviant or isolated incidents. Rather, they exist on a broad spectrum of behaviors that are normalized in everyday life.36 This spectrum includes misogynist jokes, sexual harassment, intimate intrusions, coerced sex with partners, and controlling behaviors in relationships.36 These "lesser" forms of violence are not merely precursors to "greater" violence; they are part of the same systemic fabric of control. They function to limit women's autonomy, safety, and freedom of action, thereby violating their human rights.36

The model emphasizes that violence is functional and systemic, not episodic or pathological.36 It serves to maintain a social order based on gender inequality. For example, the constant background threat of men's violence forces many women to self-regulate their behavior, such as by avoiding certain places at night, which is a form of constraint on their freedom.36 The continuum is not a ladder to be climbed but a web of interconnected experiences. This is evident in domestic abuse, where a partner's behavior can shift imperceptibly from charming and protective to possessive and controlling, using a range of tactics—both physical and non-physical—to frighten and isolate.36

The Continuum of Violence is a powerful analytical tool because it shifts the focus from individual acts of "deviance" to the underlying social structures and cultural norms that make violence against women a pervasive and "normal" feature of society.37

Comparative Analysis of Escalation Frameworks

To clarify the distinct contributions and limitations of these foundational models, the following table provides a comparative analysis.

Framework

Core Concept

Structure

Key Stages / Elements

Primary Strength

Key Limitation

Allport's Scale of Prejudice

Prejudice manifests in escalating stages of harm, from verbal expression to physical extermination.

Linear, 5-stage progression.

1. Antilocution (hate speech) 2. Avoidance 3. Discrimination 4. Physical Attack 5. Extermination

Clearly establishes the psychological link between prejudiced speech and violent action, refuting the idea that "words are harmless."

Can be interpreted as overly linear and deterministic, potentially underemphasizing the role of societal structures and non-sequential escalation.

Pyramid of Hate

Extreme violence is structurally supported by the societal normalization of lower-level biases and prejudices.

Hierarchical pyramid with 5 levels.

1. Biased Attitudes 2. Acts of Bias 3. Systemic Discrimination 4. Bias-Motivated Violence 5. Genocide

Provides a powerful visual metaphor for how widespread, "minor" biases create the societal foundation for atrocities, highlighting the importance of intervention at the lowest levels.

The rigid hierarchical structure may not capture the dynamic, and sometimes non-linear, nature of escalation. Some behaviors (e.g., dehumanization) appear in multiple levels.34

Continuum of Violence

All forms of gender-based violence are interconnected manifestations of systemic patriarchal power and are normalized in everyday life.

Non-linear, non-hierarchical spectrum or continuum.

Connects "normalized" acts (e.g., misogynist jokes, harassment) with criminalized acts (e.g., rape, murder) as part of the same system of control.

Effectively shifts the focus from individual "deviant" acts to the underlying structural and cultural norms that sanction and perpetuate violence against women.

Primarily developed to analyze gender-based violence, its direct applicability to other forms of intergroup conflict (e.g., racial, political) may require adaptation.

This comparative analysis reveals that while each framework is powerful, no single model fully integrates the psychological mechanisms of individual prejudice, the sociological process of social normalization, and the structural analysis of power dynamics. This gap highlights the need for a new, synthesized framework.

Section 4: Limitations and the Need for an Integrated Model

While Allport's Scale, the Pyramid of Hate, and the Continuum of Violence each provide invaluable insights into the escalation of violence, they also possess inherent limitations that restrict their ability to serve as a comprehensive, universally applicable model. A critical analysis of these limitations reveals the necessity of developing an integrated framework that synthesizes their respective strengths while addressing their shortcomings. The primary critiques revolve around issues of linearity, specificity of focus, and the balance between individual agency and systemic forces.

A significant limitation of both Allport's Scale and the Pyramid of Hate is their inherent linearity and potential for deterministic interpretation. These models present a clear, step-by-step progression from biased attitudes to genocide. While this clarity is a pedagogical strength, it can oversimplify the complex and dynamic nature of real-world conflict. Violence does not always escalate in a neat, sequential manner. It can de-escalate, skip stages, or fluctuate between levels. For instance, an event of bias-motivated violence (Level 4 of the Pyramid) could be followed by the enactment of new discriminatory laws (Level 3), representing a non-linear interaction between levels.40 The creators of the Pyramid of Hate acknowledge this complexity, stating that the levels are not always built consecutively.41 However, the visual structure of a scale or pyramid strongly implies a bottom-up, unidirectional flow, which may not fully capture the feedback loops and cyclical patterns that characterize many conflicts.

Another key limitation is the specificity of focus in certain models. The Continuum of Violence, for example, is a deeply insightful and powerful framework, but it was developed specifically to analyze violence against women and girls (VAWG) within a context of patriarchal power structures.36 While its principles—linking everyday normalized behaviors to extreme violence—are broadly applicable, its core theoretical grounding in feminist analysis means it may not directly or fully account for the dynamics of other forms of intergroup violence, such as those based on race, religion, or political ideology, without significant adaptation.36 Its strength in analyzing gendered power can also be a limitation when applied to conflicts where gender is not the primary axis of oppression.

Finally, the existing frameworks vary in their balance between individual versus systemic focus, often emphasizing one at the expense of the other. Allport's work, rooted in personality and social psychology, provides a robust explanation of the cognitive and affective processes within the prejudiced individual.43 However, it can be critiqued for underemphasizing the broader societal, institutional, and structural forces that create and sustain prejudice on a mass scale—forces that are central to both the Pyramid of Hate and the Continuum of Violence. Conversely, the highly structural focus of the Continuum model can sometimes obscure the specific psychological mechanisms that motivate an individual to participate in violence. While it explains the patriarchal context that

enables violence, it is less focused on the cognitive processes, such as moral disengagement, that allow an individual to commit a violent act.

These limitations point toward the need for an integrated model. Such a model would need to be dynamic rather than strictly linear, capable of explaining escalation across various forms of intergroup conflict, and adept at bridging the micro-level of individual psychology with the macro-level of societal structures and norms. It would combine the psychological progression from speech to action articulated by Allport, the powerful visual of societal normalization offered by the Pyramid of Hate, and the understanding of structural power dynamics central to the Continuum of Violence. By synthesizing these essential elements, a more comprehensive and versatile framework can be constructed to better analyze and ultimately interrupt the multifaceted process of violent escalation.

Part III: The Engine of Escalation: From Individual to Collective Violence

The transition from individual acts of prejudice to organized, collective violence is not a simple matter of aggregation. It is a transformative process driven by powerful social-psychological mechanisms that operate within group settings. A group is more than the sum of its parts; it is a social amplifier that can alter an individual's sense of identity, morality, and responsibility. This section delves into the engine of this escalation, explaining how violence is magnified and legitimized as it moves from the individual to the collective. It begins by exploring the foundational principles of group dynamics—such as deindividuation and polarization—that change how individuals behave. It then examines the specific cognitive tools, including "othering," dehumanization, and moral disengagement, that groups use to neutralize moral inhibitions and make violence not only permissible but desirable. Finally, it analyzes the critical role of charismatic leadership in activating and directing these latent psychological forces, turning diffuse grievance into targeted, collective action.

Section 5: The Social Amplifier: Group Dynamics and Identity

The presence of a group fundamentally alters human behavior, creating a social context that can dramatically increase the likelihood of aggression. An individual who might hesitate to act on a prejudice when alone can become an active participant in violence when part of a collective. This transformation is driven by a set of well-documented social-psychological principles that reduce personal accountability, intensify shared emotions, and align individual behavior with group norms.

One of the most powerful effects of a group setting is the combination of social facilitation and deindividuation. Social facilitation refers to the heightened state of arousal that individuals experience simply by being in the presence of others.45 This arousal can enhance performance on simple tasks but can impair complex decision-making, making individuals more susceptible to impulsive actions.45 When this arousal is combined with deindividuation—a loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension that occurs in group situations—the effect is amplified.45 The anonymity afforded by being part of a crowd diminishes an individual's sense of personal responsibility, disconnecting their behavior from their internal attitudes and moral values.45 This psychological state makes individuals more responsive to the immediate cues and norms of the group, whether those norms are pro-social or, in the case of a mob, violent.45

Within this deindividuated state, group polarization and risky shift further fuel the potential for aggression. Group polarization is the phenomenon whereby discussion among like-minded individuals leads to the strengthening of their pre-existing tendencies.45 In a group that shares a prejudice, members will hear their own biases echoed and validated by others, often in more extreme forms. This process reinforces their beliefs and pushes the group's average opinion toward a more radical position than any individual member held initially. This leads to a "risky shift," where the group becomes willing to make decisions and take actions that are more extreme and riskier than what its members would contemplate as individuals.45 A consensus forms not around a moderate position, but around an amplified version of the group's initial inclination, making violent action seem more acceptable and justified.

Underpinning these dynamics is the profound influence of Social Identity Theory. This theory posits that a significant part of an individual's self-concept and self-esteem is derived from their membership in social groups, or "in-groups".48 Humans are hard-wired to form groups and to favor their own in-group while often viewing "out-groups" in a negative light.48 This creates a powerful "us vs. them" dynamic. The theory predicts that when an in-group's status, resources, or identity are perceived to be under threat from an out-group, members will be more willing to take actions to protect their group—actions that can include hostility, discrimination, and violence against the perceived threat.48 This process is not necessarily driven by personal animosity but by a desire to maintain a positive social identity and protect the status of the in-group. The threat need not be real; a perceived threat, often manufactured or exaggerated by leaders, is sufficient to trigger defensive aggression.50 The group, therefore, is not merely a collection of individuals. It is a transformative environment that alters psychological states, reshapes moral calculations, and provides a powerful identity-based motivation for intergroup conflict.

Section 6: The Mechanisms of Moral Neutralization

For collective violence to occur, especially on a sustained and systematic basis, inherent human inhibitions against harming others must be overcome. This is achieved through a set of powerful cognitive mechanisms that allow perpetrators to neutralize their moral self-sanctions, making inhumane conduct seem acceptable, justified, or even necessary. These tools of moral neutralization are activated and amplified within group settings, creating a psychological environment where violence becomes legitimized. The key processes include the creation of a legitimate target through "othering" and dehumanization, the justification of harmful acts through moral disengagement, and the catalytic role of leadership in orchestrating these processes.

6.1 'Othering' and Dehumanization: Creating a Legitimate Target

Before violence can be committed against a group, that group must first be psychologically cordoned off from the perpetrator's own community. This is achieved through the dual processes of "othering" and dehumanization.

Othering is the foundational process of defining a group of people as intrinsically different from and alien to "us".52 It involves focusing on perceived differences—such as ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs—and using them to construct a rigid "us vs. them" dichotomy.53 This act of categorization reduces empathy and prevents genuine dialogue, setting the stage for prejudice and discrimination.53 By portraying the "other" group as a monolithic entity with negative characteristics, it negates their individual humanity and makes them seem less worthy of dignity and respect.54 This process is a necessary precondition for justifying mistreatment, as it creates the social and psychological distance required to view another group as a legitimate target for hostility.

Dehumanization is the extension of othering to its most extreme conclusion: the psychological process of viewing the "other" as less than human.55 This is a critical step in enabling mass violence, as it removes the targeted group from the sphere of moral consideration.55 Propaganda is a primary tool in this process, systematically employing language and imagery that compares the target group to animals (e.g., vermin, insects, apes), diseases, or inanimate objects.56 This rhetoric is not merely metaphorical; it has been shown to have cognitive correlates, where brain regions associated with normal social cognition fail to activate when viewing dehumanized others.56 By stripping a group of its humanity, perpetrators can bypass the moral restraints that normally prevent them from inflicting harm on fellow human beings.57

It is important to note, however, that the role of dehumanization can be nuanced. Recent research distinguishes between two primary types of violence: instrumental violence, which is harm inflicted to achieve a specific goal (e.g., resource acquisition), and moral violence, which is harm inflicted as a form of punishment or retribution against those deemed immoral.61 Studies suggest that dehumanization is particularly effective in enabling instrumental violence, as it makes perpetrators apathetic to their victims' suffering. In contrast, for morally motivated violence, perpetrators may actually need to

humanize their victims, perceiving them as complete human beings who are capable of deserving blame, experiencing suffering, and understanding the meaning of their punishment.61 This complicates the traditional view of dehumanization as a universal prerequisite for all forms of violence, suggesting its function varies depending on the perpetrator's motivation.

6.2 Moral Disengagement: Justifying Inhumane Conduct

Even when a target has been "othered" or dehumanized, individuals still possess internalized moral standards that can produce guilt and self-censure. Psychologist Albert Bandura identified eight specific cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement that allow individuals and groups to selectively turn off these moral self-sanctions, thereby justifying inhumane conduct without losing their positive self-image.63 These mechanisms are particularly potent in group and institutional contexts. They can be categorized into four main loci of disengagement:

1. Reconstructing the Conduct: This involves reframing harmful actions to make them seem benign or righteous.

• Moral Justification: Portraying violent acts as serving a higher moral or social purpose, such as fighting for freedom, protecting one's nation, or preserving cherished values. This is a powerful tool used in military and paramilitary contexts to convert ordinary people into fighters.64

• Euphemistic Labeling: Using sanitized, convoluted, or technical language to mask the true nature of violent acts. For example, calling murder "liquidation" or civilian casualties "collateral damage" makes the actions more palatable.65

• Advantageous Comparison: Making one's own violent actions seem trivial or righteous by comparing them to the allegedly worse actions of the opponent. This exploits the principle of contrast to minimize the perceived severity of one's own conduct.64

2. Obscuring Personal Agency: This involves minimizing or displacing one's role in causing harm.

• Displacement of Responsibility: Ceding responsibility for one's actions to a figure of authority. The "just following orders" defense is the classic example of this mechanism, which is highly effective in hierarchical organizations like the military or police.64

• Diffusion of Responsibility: Spreading the responsibility for a collective action so thinly among group members that no single individual feels personally accountable. When "everyone is doing it," personal agency is obscured, and the psychological burden of the act is shared and diminished.64

3. Disregarding or Distorting Consequences: This involves ignoring, minimizing, or misconstruing the harmful effects of one's actions. By avoiding or reinterpreting the evidence of suffering, perpetrators can insulate themselves from the reality of the harm they are causing.64

4. Blaming and Dehumanizing the Victim: This shifts the focus onto the target of the violence.

• Attribution of Blame: Seeing the victim as responsible for their own suffering. Perpetrators may argue that the victims brought the harm upon themselves through their own provocative actions or character flaws.64

• Dehumanization: As discussed previously, stripping victims of human qualities makes it easier to inflict harm without empathy or guilt.64

These mechanisms are not post-hoc rationalizations but are enabling processes that precede and facilitate violent action, allowing individuals and groups to engage in atrocities while preserving their sense of themselves as moral beings.67

6.3 The Role of Charismatic Leadership: The 'Entrepreneurs of Identity'

While group dynamics and cognitive mechanisms create the potential for collective violence, it is often charismatic leadership that acts as the catalyst, activating and directing these latent forces. Leaders in conflict situations function as "entrepreneurs of identity" and "entrepreneurs of emotion," shaping the narrative that makes violence seem not only possible but necessary.51

A charismatic leader's primary role is to frame the group's grievances in a compelling way. They articulate a vision that simplifies a complex world into a stark struggle between a virtuous in-group and a malevolent out-group.51 They identify the enemy, apply the dehumanizing labels, and provide the powerful moral justifications that activate the mechanisms of moral disengagement on a mass scale. Through speeches, propaganda, and symbolic acts, they tap into the emotional vulnerabilities and societal anxieties of their followers, offering a sense of purpose, belonging, and power in exchange for loyalty.70

Research has shown that the rhetoric of leaders inciting violence often contains a specific emotional signature. An analysis of speeches preceding both violent and non-violent political events found that a combination of anger, contempt, and disgust (ANCODI) was significantly elevated in the months leading up to violent events, whereas only anger was elevated before non-violent events.68 Anger motivates action against a perceived injustice, contempt positions the out-group as inferior and worthless, and disgust frames them as a source of contamination that must be eliminated. This emotional cocktail is a potent driver of intergroup violence. By skillfully manipulating these emotions, a charismatic leader can transform a population's latent prejudices and grievances into a mobilized and aggressive force, directing it with precision toward a designated target. Leadership, therefore, is the crucial link that translates the psychological potential for violence into organized, collective action.

Part IV: A New Paradigm - The Violence Cascade Framework

The preceding analysis demonstrates that while existing models of escalation offer critical insights, they remain incomplete. Allport's Scale highlights the psychological progression from speech to action, the Pyramid of Hate illustrates the structural role of societal normalization, and the Continuum of Violence reveals the deep-seated influence of power dynamics. However, no single framework fully integrates these micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis into a dynamic, multi-dimensional model.

This section introduces a new, integrated paradigm: The Violence Cascade Framework. This framework is designed to overcome the limitations of previous models by visualizing the interplay between the escalating intensity of violent acts and the expanding scale of their social acceptance. It posits that escalation is not a simple linear climb but a "cascade" effect, where the normalization of violence at one level of social aggregation enables the eruption of more severe forms of violence. This model provides a more nuanced and comprehensive tool for diagnosing the risk of violence in a given society and for identifying the most effective points for intervention.

Section 7: The Proposed Framework: Visualizing the Interplay of Violence and Social Scale

The Violence Cascade Framework is structured as a two-dimensional matrix designed to map the progression of violence across both its form and its social context. This structure allows for a dynamic understanding of escalation, moving beyond a simple linear or hierarchical model to capture the crucial interaction between the severity of an act and its level of social sanctioning.

Framework Structure

The framework is organized along two primary axes, each with detailed sub-categories to provide a more granular analysis.

• The Y-Axis (The Violence Spectrum): This vertical axis represents the escalating intensity and severity of violent acts, categorized into three broad, interdependent levels. These levels contain ranked sub-categories to capture the progression of harm more precisely.

• Level 1: Non-Verbal & Attitudinal Violence: This foundational level includes the most subtle but pervasive forms of aggression. It encompasses biased attitudes, stereotypes, microaggressions, insensitive remarks, non-inclusive language, social avoidance, and intimidating gestures.34 These acts create an environment of exclusion and communicate negative slights and insults, laying the cognitive and social groundwork for more overt violence.

• Level 2: Verbal Violence: This intermediate level involves the explicit use of language to harm, intimidate, and dehumanize, and is ranked by increasing aggressiveness.

• 2.1 Hostile & Derogatory Language: This includes shouting, mild cursing, personal insults, ridicule, and vicious or severe insults intended to demean and belittle.

• 2.2 Coercive & Manipulative Language: This involves more psychologically damaging tactics such as blame-shifting, gaslighting, and other forms of manipulation designed to control a victim and erode their sense of reality.

• 2.3 Threats & Incitement: This represents the most severe form of verbal violence, including impulsive or deliberate threats of physical harm and explicit incitement for others to commit violence.

• Level 3: Physical Violence: This highest level encompasses all forms of physical harm, ranked by the severity of the act and the degree of injury.

• 3.1 Minor & Symbolic Physical Violence: This includes acts that cause little to no physical injury but are intended to intimidate, such as pushing, shoving, slapping, or destroying property. This corresponds to lesser degrees of assault, such as fourth-degree or simple assault.

• 3.2 Moderate Physical Violence (Assault): This involves acts that cause bodily harm, often requiring medical attention but not typically life-threatening. Examples include punching, kicking, and assault with an object that does not result in serious injury. This aligns with second and third-degree assault charges.

• 3.3 Severe & Lethal Physical Violence: This includes acts with the intent to cause serious bodily injury, permanent disability, or death. Examples are assault with a deadly weapon, strangulation, torture, murder, and systematic extermination (genocide). This aligns with first-degree assault and capital offenses.

• The X-Axis (The Social Scale): This horizontal axis represents the level of social aggregation at which the violence is occurring and the degree to which it is normalized or sanctioned, distinguishing between informal and formal group structures.

• Stage A: Individual: At this stage, violent acts are primarily committed by individuals. These actions may be driven by personal prejudice but are often still in conflict with broader societal norms. The perpetrator acts as a lone agent.

• Stage B: Informal Group: Here, violence is committed by groups that emerge spontaneously based on social interactions, shared interests, or personal relationships. These groups, such as friendship circles or online mobs, lack a formal structure and have no officially appointed leaders.

• Stage C: Formal Group: At this stage, violence is perpetrated by deliberately created groups with defined structures, clear roles, and designated leaders. These groups, which can range from small to large, are formed to achieve specific objectives and include entities like political parties, organized movements, or corporations.

• Stage D: Societal / Institutional: This is the critical stage where violence becomes normalized, tolerated, legitimized, or actively perpetrated by mainstream societal institutions. This includes the legal system, government, media, and educational institutions.19 At this stage, discriminatory laws may be passed, hate speech may become part of mainstream political discourse, and state apparatuses (like police or military) may be used to carry out violence.73

The Cascade Dynamic

The central thesis of the Violence Cascade Framework is that major escalations in the severity of violence (moving up the Y-axis) are almost always preceded and enabled by an expansion in the social acceptance of violence (moving across the X-axis). The process is not a simple climb up a ladder but a cascade that tends to move diagonally from the bottom-left (Individual, Non-Verbal) to the top-right (Societal, Physical).

The progression works as follows: for violence to jump from Level 1 (Non-Verbal) to Level 2 (Verbal), it must first gain a foothold at the group or societal level. Similarly, for violence to jump from Level 2 (Verbal) to Level 3 (Physical), it typically requires the normalization of verbal violence at the societal level. The expansion along the social scale (X-axis) dissolves the inhibitions and removes the social sanctions that would otherwise prevent an escalation in severity (Y-axis).

An illustrative pathway of the cascade demonstrates this dynamic:

1. Quadrant (1A) - Individual Non-Verbal Violence: An individual holds a private stereotype (biased attitude) and chooses to avoid or subtly exclude someone from a different group (act of bias).

2. Cascade to (1B) - Informal Group Non-Verbal Violence: The individual finds a like-minded informal group (e.g., a circle of friends). The group collectively engages in social avoidance and circulates derogatory memes. The behavior is now an informal group norm.

3. Cascade to (1C/D) - Formal Group & Societal Non-Verbal Violence: The behavior becomes widespread. A formal group (e.g., a political organization) adopts these biases, and mainstream media begins to regularly portray the targeted group using negative stereotypes.75 The subtle exclusion becomes so commonplace that it is considered "normal," creating a societal foundation for the next level.

4. Cascade to (2.1C) - Formal Group Hostile Language: With non-verbal bias now normalized, the threshold for overt verbal attack is lowered. The formal group feels emboldened to hold rallies featuring slurs and hostile language (Level 2.1).

5. Cascade to (2.3D) - Societal Threats & Incitement: The rhetoric of the formal group is adopted by mainstream political leaders. Dehumanizing language and direct threats (Level 2.3) enter political discourse.58 Laws protecting against incitement may be weakened or poorly enforced.13 Verbal violence is now legitimized by institutions of power.

6. Cascade to (3.2C) - Formal Group Moderate Physical Violence: Feeling sanctioned by the normalized rhetoric, the formal group escalates to physical violence. Members may carry out targeted assaults (Level 3.2), believing their actions are supported by the wider society.

7. Cascade to (3.3D) - Societal Lethal Violence: The state apparatus itself becomes the perpetrator of violence. Discriminatory laws are passed, and state-sanctioned violence follows, ultimately leading to the full mobilization of state resources to carry out systematic extermination, or genocide (Level 3.3).23

This cascade dynamic illustrates the framework's core principle: societal acceptance is the fuel for escalation. Each movement to the right along the X-axis makes a subsequent upward movement along the Y-axis far more likely.

Section 8: Applying the Framework: Tracing Pathways to Atrocity

The analytical utility of the Violence Cascade Framework is best demonstrated by applying it to historical and contemporary cases of violence. By mapping key events and actors onto the framework's matrix, we can trace the pathway of escalation and identify the critical inflection points where intervention might have been possible.

The Violence Cascade Framework Chart

This chart illustrates the escalation of violence as a "cascade" effect. The process typically moves diagonally from the bottom-left (less severe acts by individuals) to the top-right (most severe acts normalized and perpetrated by society and its institutions). The expansion of social acceptance for violence at lower levels (moving from left to right) enables the escalation to more severe forms of violence (moving from bottom to top).

The Social Continuum

Stage A: Individual

Stage B: Informal Group (e.g., Friendship circles, online mobs)

Stage C: Formal Group (e.g., Political parties, organized movements)

Stage D: Societal / Institutional (e.g., Government, media, legal system)

The Aggressiveness Continuum

Level 3.3: Severe & Lethal Physical Violence (e.g., Murder, Torture, Genocide)

Level 3.2: Moderate Physical Violence (Assault) (e.g., Punching, Kicking, Assault)

Level 3.1: Minor & Symbolic Physical Violence (e.g., Pushing, Shoving, Vandalism)

Level 2.3: Threats & Incitement (e.g., Threats of harm, Calls for violence)

Level 2.2: Coercive & Manipulative Language (e.g., Gaslighting, Blame-shifting)

Level 2.1: Hostile & Derogatory Language (e.g., Slurs, Ridicule, Vicious insults)

Level 1: Non-Verbal & Attitudinal Violence (e.g., Biased attitudes, Stereotypes, Intimidating gestures, Social avoidance)

Graphically, this can be represented by the following pictogram.

Mapping Historical Examples to the Framework

This analysis plots specific historical examples onto the Violence Cascade Framework, identifying the primary quadrants that characterize their actions. It is important to note that while the final, most violent act defines their peak position on the framework, these individuals and groups typically progressed through the lower levels of attitudinal, non-verbal, and verbal violence to reach that point.

• The Holocaust (Nazi Germany)

• Framework Quadrants: 1-D, 2-D, 3.1-D, 3.2-D, 3.3-D (All Levels of Violence – Societal / Institutional)

• Analysis: The Holocaust is the archetypal example of violence cascading to the societal and institutional level. The Nazi party, a formal group, seized control of the state and used its institutions—legal, educational, media, and military—to perpetrate violence on a mass scale.76 The escalation followed the framework's path:

• Level 1-D: The state normalized antisemitic attitudes and non-verbal violence through pervasive propaganda and the encouragement of social avoidance.77

• Level 2-D: The state institutionalized verbal violence, making dehumanizing hate speech a central part of its official communications and public discourse.

• Level 3-D: The state enacted discriminatory laws like the Nuremberg Laws, a form of systemic physical harm (Level 3.1/3.2), which then escalated to state-organized pogroms (Level 3.2/3.3), and culminated in the systematic, industrial-scale extermination of European Jews and other targeted groups (Level 3.3).80

• Lone Assassins (e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman)

• Framework Quadrant: 3.3-A (Severe & Lethal Physical Violence – Individual)

• Analysis: These individuals represent violence committed at the individual level. While influenced by broader ideologies or personal psychological factors, they acted alone and not as part of an organized group. The Warren Commission, for instance, concluded that Oswald was essentially a "loner". Chapman's motivations were rooted in personal obsessions and delusions that turned outward into violence. Their final acts of assassination place them at the highest level of the violence spectrum (Level 3.3) for the individual social scale (Stage A). Their journey to this point was preceded by a progression through the lower levels, including Oswald's profound alienation and commitment to Marxism (Level 1) and Chapman's development of delusions and outward-turned anger (Level 1).

• Oklahoma City Bombers (Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols)

• Framework Quadrant: 3.3-B (Severe & Lethal Physical Violence – Informal Group)

• Analysis: McVeigh and Nichols operated as a small, self-radicalized cell without a formal, hierarchical structure, which is characteristic of an informal group. They were friends who shared anti-government ideologies and a contempt for federal authorities, particularly after the events at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Their collaboration to build and detonate a bomb that killed 168 people was a premeditated act of lethal violence, placing them in Quadrant 3.3-B.

• 9/11 Attackers (Al-Qaeda)

• Framework Quadrant: 3.3-C (Severe & Lethal Physical Violence – Formal Group)

• Analysis: Although the 9/11 hijackers operated in small cells, they were members of Al-Qaeda, a deliberately created organization with a defined leadership structure, a clear ideology, and global affiliates. Al-Qaeda is structured with a centralized command for decision-making on major attacks, while allowing for decentralized execution, fitting the definition of a formal group. The coordinated attacks were an act of severe and lethal violence (Level 3.3) perpetrated by a formal group (Stage C). This act was the culmination of the group's ideological framework, which includes anti-Americanism and the goal of establishing a pan-Islamist caliphate (Level 1), and its use of incitement to violence (Level 2.3).

• Ku Klux Klan (KKK)

• Framework Quadrants: 1-C, 2-C, 3.1-C, 3.2-C, 3.3-C (All Levels of Violence – Formal Group)

• Analysis: The KKK is a clear example of a formal group that has engaged in the full spectrum of violence. It has an established hierarchical structure with titles like "Imperial Wizard" and "Grand Dragon" and a clear, albeit evolving, ideology of white supremacy. The Klan's activities map across the entire violence spectrum at the formal group level (Stage C):

• Level 1-C: Promoting biased attitudes through an ideology of white supremacy, anti-immigration, anti-Catholicism, and antisemitism.

• Level 2-C: Engaging in verbal violence through organized campaigns of threats and intimidation against Black communities and their allies.

• Level 3-C: Committing acts of physical violence ranging from symbolic acts like cross burnings (Level 3.1), to moderate violence like whippings and beatings (Level 3.2), to severe and lethal violence including bombings, lynchings, and murder (Level 3.3).

Part V: Implications and Recommendations

The Violence Cascade Framework is more than an analytical tool; it is a paradigm for prevention. By understanding that extreme physical violence is the culmination of a process rooted in the societal normalization of lesser aggressions, it becomes clear that effective intervention strategies must be proactive, multi-layered, and targeted at the foundational levels of the cascade. Reactive measures that only address violence after it has become physical are insufficient. A comprehensive approach must aim to interrupt the cascade at its earliest and most vulnerable points, challenging the attitudes, behaviors, and institutional practices that enable escalation. The following recommendations are derived directly from the logic of the framework and are designed for implementation by policymakers, educators, civil society organizations, and community leaders.

Section 9: Interrupting the Cascade: Strategies for De-escalation and Prevention

The framework reveals that the path to atrocity is paved with seemingly minor transgressions that, when left unchecked, create a culture of impunity. Therefore, strategies for de-escalation and prevention must be comprehensive, addressing the full spectrum of violence from individual attitudes to institutional policies.

Focus on Foundational Levels: Countering Violence in Quadrants 1A, 1B, and 1C

The most effective and resource-efficient interventions are those that target the lower-left quadrants of the framework, before violence has become deeply normalized or physically manifest. The goal is to build societal resilience against hate by challenging the biased attitudes and non-verbal aggressions that form the base of the pyramid.

• Educational Programming: Implement evidence-based educational curricula from early childhood through higher education that are designed to challenge stereotypes, deconstruct implicit bias, and promote critical thinking.33 Programs should focus on teaching the history of prejudice and its consequences, using tools like the Pyramid of Hate to illustrate how biased attitudes can escalate.81 This directly targets the formation of individual biased attitudes (Quadrant 1A).

• Media Literacy and Counter-Speech Initiatives: Launch public awareness and media literacy campaigns that equip citizens to identify and critically analyze dehumanizing propaganda, disinformation, and hate speech in media and online.13 Support and amplify "counter-speech" initiatives, where civil society groups and individuals actively challenge and rebut hateful narratives online and in public discourse. This works to prevent the normalization of non-verbal and verbal biases at the group and societal levels (Quadrants 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C).

• Promoting Bystander Intervention: Foster a culture of active bystander intervention by providing training and social encouragement for individuals to safely speak up against microaggressions, derogatory jokes, and acts of social exclusion.6 When "harmless" acts of bias are consistently challenged, it sends a powerful social signal that such behavior is not acceptable, preventing its normalization and interrupting the progression from biased attitudes (Level 1) to more overt acts (Level 2).

Challenge Institutional Complicity: Dismantling the Structures of Stage C

The framework identifies the transition to Stage C—societal and institutional normalization—as the most dangerous inflection point. Therefore, a primary focus of prevention must be on holding institutions accountable and ensuring they actively challenge, rather than enable, violence.

• Strengthen Legal Frameworks: Enact and rigorously enforce strong legal frameworks against hate speech, incitement to violence, and discrimination.13 Laws send a clear message about societal values and can alter norms by making previously tolerated behaviors illegal and punishable.84 Legal systems must be reformed to ensure they do not perpetuate institutional violence through biased practices or the failure to protect vulnerable groups.19 This involves training for police, prosecutors, and judges on the dynamics of bias and violence.

• Demand Accountability from Leadership: Political, religious, and community leaders must be held to a high standard of public discourse. They must be publicly and consistently condemned for using dehumanizing language, spreading disinformation, or inciting hatred against any group. Civil society and media have a critical role to play in monitoring and calling out such rhetoric, preventing it from becoming a normalized part of the political landscape (countering Quadrant 2C).

• Reform Institutional Policies and Practices: All major institutions—including corporations, schools, and government agencies—should conduct audits of their internal policies and practices to identify and eliminate sources of systemic discrimination and institutional violence.20 This includes creating robust, transparent, and fair procedures for reporting and addressing harassment and abuse, ensuring that the institution protects survivors rather than perpetrators.

Promote Cross-Cutting Identities: Weakening the "Us vs. Them" Dynamic

The engine of collective violence is the rigid "us vs. them" mentality fueled by Social Identity Theory. A powerful long-term strategy for violence prevention is to deliberately weaken these divisions by fostering shared, cross-cutting, and superordinate identities.

• Support for Integrated and Cooperative Initiatives: Invest in and promote social, civic, and educational initiatives that bring people together across lines of identity to work toward common goals. This aligns with Allport's "contact hypothesis," which posits that prejudice can be reduced through intergroup contact under conditions of equal status, common goals, and cooperation.86 Integrated schools, community service projects, and local sports leagues can build social cohesion and create a shared civic identity that transcends narrower in-group loyalties.50

• Cultivating a Shared Human Identity: Emphasize universal human rights and shared values in public discourse and education. By consistently framing social issues through the lens of a common humanity, it becomes more difficult for leaders to successfully "other" or dehumanize a specific group. This strategy aims to expand the moral community to include all people, making the cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement harder to activate.

Conclusion

This report has sought to validate the fundamental hypothesis that all forms of violence are interconnected. Physical violence does not emerge from a vacuum. It is the final, tragic outcome of a predictable cascade that begins with biased attitudes and non-verbal aggressions. These foundational harms, when left unchallenged, become normalized at a group level and are eventually sanctioned by societal institutions. This societal acceptance of "lesser" harms—the derogatory joke, the subtle exclusion, the dehumanizing political rhetoric—is what systematically erodes the moral and social inhibitions that prevent the eruption of overt physical violence.

The Violence Cascade Framework provides a new lens to understand this dynamic process. It demonstrates that the most critical battleground in the prevention of atrocity is not on the physical battlefield, but in the cultural and political arenas where norms are contested and institutional legitimacy is conferred. The framework reveals that interrupting this cascade requires a profound shift in perspective: we must recognize that challenging a stereotype, reporting a microaggression, or condemning a leader's hateful speech are not acts of "political correctness" but are essential, evidence-based strategies of violence prevention. Preventing the ultimate tragedy of genocide requires the collective courage and unwavering commitment to confront and dismantle the architecture of hate at its very foundation.

Works cited

1. Types of abuse - Love is Respect, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.loveisrespect.org/resources/types-of-abuse/

2. Verbal Abuse: Examples, Signs, and Effects - Talkspace, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.talkspace.com/blog/verbal-abuse/

3. Physical violence - Gender Matters - The Council of Europe, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/physical-violence

4. Common Examples of Non-Verbal Sexual Harassment in the Workplace - King & Siegel LLP, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.kingsiegel.com/blog/common-examples-of-non-verbal-sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace/

5. What Are Some Examples of Non-verbal Sexual Harassment, and How Do They Communicate Feelings of Discomfort or Disrespect in the Workplace? - Continued.com, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.continued.com/respiratory-therapy/ask-the-experts/what-examples-non-verbal-sexual-harrasment-how-communicate-feelings-discomfor-disrepect-workplace-202

6. Understanding Nonverbal Harassment In the Workplace - Media Partners, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.mediapartners.com/blog/post/workplace-non-verbal-sexual-harassment

7. Bullying - LoboRESPECT Advocacy Center - The University of New Mexico, accessed September 13, 2025, https://loborespect.unm.edu/Get%20Help%20now/bullying1/bullying-definition.html

8. Forms of family violence | Safe and Equal, accessed September 13, 2025, https://safeandequal.org.au/understanding-family-violence/forms/

9. Verbal abuse - Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse

10. Verbal violence and hate speech - Gender Matters - The Council of Europe, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/verbal-violence-and-hate-speech

11. 11 Common Patterns of Verbal Abuse, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/oeib/titleix/docs/OneLoveResources/Blog-11-Common-Patterns-of-Verbal-Abuse.pdf

12. 11 Common Patterns of Verbal Abuse - One Love Foundation, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.joinonelove.org/learn/11-common-patterns-verbal-abuse/

13. Hate speech and violence - European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/hate-speech-and-violence

14. Abuse and violence - American Psychological Association, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.apa.org/topics/physical-abuse-violence

15. Types of Abuse, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.womenagainstabuse.org/education-resources/learn-about-abuse/types-of-domestic-violence

16. What is physical violence? - Report + Support - University of St Andrews, accessed September 13, 2025, https://reportandsupport.st-andrews.ac.uk/support/what-is-physical-violence

17. Types and Signs of Abuse - DSHS, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.dshs.wa.gov/altsa/home-and-community-services/types-and-signs-abuse

18. Definition: act of physical violence from 40 USC § 5104(a)(1) | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=40-USC-1390921591-2033562886&term_occur=1&term_src=title:40:subtitle:II:part:B:chapter:51:section:5104

19. Institutional Violence Against Women Victims: Can We Avoid It?, accessed September 13, 2025, https://victim-support.eu/opinon/institutional-violence-against-women-victims-can-we-avoid-it/

20. What Is Institutional Abuse? (Definition, Types, And Effects) - The Mend Project, accessed September 13, 2025, https://themendproject.com/institutional-abuse/

21. Examples of Institutional Violence – May 28, accessed September 13, 2025, https://may28.org/resources/examples-of-institutional-violence/

22. Structural violence and institutionalized individuals: A paleopathological perspective on a continuing issue | PLOS One, accessed September 13, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290014

23. TACKLING INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE: THE INTERVENTION PROTOCOL FOR HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE MEXICAN FEDERAL PUBLIC AD - GOV.UK, accessed September 13, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a089d9ed915d622c000423/131212_GOV_GenVio_BRIEF4.pdf

24. Understanding Aggressive Behavior Across the Life Span - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed September 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3411865/

25. The Psychology of Aggression: Signs, Types, and Explanations - Verywell Mind, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-aggression-2794818

26. When Does Verbal Aggression in Relationships Covary With ..., accessed September 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8225258/

27. (PDF) Verbal, physical and relational aggression: individual differences in emotion and cognitive regulation strategies - ResearchGate, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378180824_Verbal_physical_and_relational_aggression_individual_differences_in_emotion_and_cognitive_regulation_strategies

28. Allport's Scale - Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale

29. Prejudice and Allport's Scale | The Classroom, accessed September 13, 2025, http://the-classroom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Prejudice_And_Allport_Scale.pdf-1.pdf

30. The Causes of Human Rights Violations (10): Prejudice According to Allport's Scale, accessed September 13, 2025, https://cosmologicallyinsignificant.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/human-rights-quote-85-prejudice-and-allports-scale/

31. Anti-Defamation League | Pyramid of Hate | Plains States/CRC, accessed September 13, 2025, https://omaha.adl.org/pyramid-of-hate/

32. PYRAMID OF HATE - AL.com, accessed September 13, 2025, https://media.al.com/business_impact/other/Pyramid-of-Hate.pdf

33. Pyramid of Hate Lesson - Holocaust Center for Humanity, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.holocaustcenterseattle.org/images/Lessons/Pyramid_of_Hate_Lesson-HCH_Best_Practices.pdf

34. Pyramid of Hate | Human Rights and Equity Office - Queen's University, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.queensu.ca/hreo/resources/antisemitism/pyramid-hate

35. Genocide Systematic Discrimination Bias-Motivated Violence Acts of Bias Biased Attitudes, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.towson.edu/inclusionequity/documents/hate-bias-pyramid.pdf

36. The concept of a continuum of violence against women was developed by Liz Kelly (a leading scholar in this field) in Surviving S, accessed September 13, 2025, https://womensaid.scot/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ESiP-Continuum-of-Violence.pdf

37. Drawing on the continuum: a war and post-war political economy of ..., accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616742.2019.1692686

38. The gendered continuum of violence and conflict: An operational framework - ResearchGate, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284820430_The_gendered_continuum_of_violence_and_conflict_An_operational_framework

39. Interrupting the Pyramid of Hate, accessed September 13, 2025, https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1601998917/fuhsdorg/plqdtunmdqv4yabvgt5q/InterruptingthePyramidofHate.pdf

40. Pyramid of Hate - CANDLES Holocaust Museum, accessed September 13, 2025, https://candlesholocaustmuseum.org/file_download/inline/bc968f6a-ed95-40ae-9a98-ccf8cb7febd4

41. Pyramid of Hate - Youth Research and Evaluation eXchange - YouthREX, accessed September 13, 2025, https://youthrex.com/factsheet/pyramid-of-hate/

42. Gender and the Continuum of Violence in Migration - Frontiers, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/60372/gender-and-the-continuum-of-violence-in-migration

43. Theories of Prejudice | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, accessed September 13, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/psychology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-327?p=emailAWuY1ezVdUT.A&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-327

44. (PDF) Allport's Prejudiced Personality Today - ResearchGate, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224961595_Allport's_Prejudiced_Personality_Today

45. The Group Dynamics & Individual Factors of Teen Violence - Lepage Associates, accessed September 13, 2025, https://lepageassociates.com/articles-and-podcasts/the-group-dynamics-individual-factors-of-teen-violence/

46. The social psychology of violence and aggression | Claire Lawrence, Ph, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003209270-4/social-psychology-violence-aggression-claire-lawrence-phil-leather

47. 7 Factors That Contribute to Group Violence | Psychology Today, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/overcoming-destructive-anger/202302/7-factors-that-contribute-to-group-violence

48. Social Identity Theory: I, You, Us & We. Why Groups Matter - Positive Psychology, accessed September 13, 2025, https://positivepsychology.com/social-identity-theory/

49. THE SOCIAL IDENTITY DIMENSION OF INTER-GROUP CONFLICTS MUzAFFER ERCAN YILMAz* ABSTRACT Gruplar arası uyuşmazlıKların sosyal - BU-Journal, accessed September 13, 2025, https://bujournal.bogazici.edu.tr/docs/13317357975.Muzaffer%20Ercan%20Yilmaz.pdf

50. Social Identity - Project Over Zero, accessed September 13, 2025, https://overzero.ghost.io/social-identity/

51. (PDF) Social Identity and Justice in Violent Conflicts – A Dynamic Model of Intergroup Conflict - ResearchGate, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226709658_Social_Identity_and_Justice_in_Violent_Conflicts_-_A_Dynamic_Model_of_Intergroup_Conflict

52. museeholocauste.ca, accessed September 13, 2025, https://museeholocauste.ca/en/resources-training/the-process-of-othering/#:~:text=In%20many%20instances%2C%20othering%20has,us%E2%80%9D%20and%20%E2%80%9Cthem%E2%80%9D.

53. Us vs. Them: The process of othering | CMHR, accessed September 13, 2025, https://humanrights.ca/story/us-vs-them-process-othering

54. Othering: How It Contributes to Discrimination and Prejudice - Verywell Mind, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425

55. Dehumanization - Beyond Intractability, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization

56. Dehumanization and the Normalization of Violence: It's Not What You Think, accessed September 13, 2025, https://items.ssrc.org/insights/dehumanization-and-the-normalization-of-violence-its-not-what-you-think/

57. Dehumanization and mass violence: A study of mental state language in Nazi propaganda (1927–1945) | PLOS One - Research journals, accessed September 13, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274957

58. Decoding Dehumanization: Policy Brief for Policymakers and Practitioners - Beyond Conflict, accessed September 13, 2025, https://beyondconflictint.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Decoding-Dehumanization-Policy-Brief-2019.pdf

59. Dehumanization: An Early Warning Sign of Future Political Violence, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.polisci.uci.edu/files/docs/theses/2023-24/2024_rivera_rocioceleste.pdf

60. Dehumanization and mass violence: A study of mental state language in Nazi propaganda (1927–1945) - PubMed Central, accessed September 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9645591/

61. Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence - PNAS, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1705238114

62. Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence - PMC, accessed September 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5559031/

63. Moral disengagement | Research Starters - EBSCO, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/moral-disengagement

64. Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities - GitHub Pages, accessed September 13, 2025, https://sdimakis.github.io/moral_psychology/readings/week_7/Bandura_1999.pdf

65. Situationally Selective Activation of Moral Disengagement Mechanisms in School Bullying: A Repeated Within-Subjects Experimental Study - Frontiers, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01101/full

66. Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement Mechanisms in the Relationship Between Perceived Parental Warmth and Youth Violence - PubMed Central, accessed September 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11854850/

67. Moral Disengagement Mechanisms and Armed Violence. A Comparative Study of Paramilitaries and Guerrillas in Colombia - Redalyc, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.redalyc.org/journal/804/80464411005/html/

68. The Role of Intergroup Emotions in Political Violence | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283241715_The_Role_of_Intergroup_Emotions_in_Political_Violence

69. Charismatic Leadership and the Formation of Hate Groups - Bohrium, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.bohrium.com/paper-details/charismatic-leadership-and-the-formation-of-hate-groups/812551530547773441-49010

70. Charismatic Leadership and Vulnerability: A Comprehensive Study of Cult Dynamics - Ursinus Digital Commons, accessed September 13, 2025, https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=psych_pres

71. The Role of Charismatic Authority in the Radicalization Towards Violence and Strategic Operation of Terrorist Group - UWSpace - University of Waterloo, accessed September 13, 2025, https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstreams/db22cecc-9833-4b05-83d3-ff1d80dd67e0/download

72. Microaggression - Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

73. Structural violence - Wikipedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

74. Reforming by Re-Norming: How the Legal System Has the Potential to Change a Toxic Culture of Domestic Violence, accessed September 13, 2025, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1677&context=jleg

75. Addressing the Social and Cultural Norms That Underlie the Acceptance of Violence - NCBI, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493719/

76. Al-Qaeda's continued core strategy and disquieting leader-led trajectory, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/al-qaedas-continued-core-strategy-and-disquieting-leader-led-trajectory/

77. Ku Klux Klan in the Reconstruction Era - New Georgia Encyclopedia, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/ku-klux-klan-in-the-reconstruction-era/

78. Al-Qaeda's Keys to Success, accessed September 13, 2025, https://go.usa.gov/x6vDb

79. Full article: Foreshadowing Terror: Exploring the Time of Online Manifestos Prior to Lone Wolf Attacks, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2205973

80. Chapter 7: Lee Harvey Oswald - National Archives, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-7.html

81. Pyramid of Hate - Holocaust Center for Humanity, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.holocaustcenterseattle.org/pyramid-of-hate

82. Pyramid of Hate Exercise - USC Shoah Foundation, accessed September 13, 2025, https://sfi.usc.edu/sites/default/files/lessons/units/POH_Final_0.pdf

83. Microaggressions: Definition, types, and examples - Medical News Today, accessed September 13, 2025, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/microagressions

84. Changing cultural and social norms that support violence - World Health Organization (WHO), accessed September 13, 2025, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44147/9789241598330_eng.pdf

85. Breaking the Cycle of Violence: Recommendations to Improve the Criminal Justice Response to Child Victims and Witnesses, accessed September 13, 2025, https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/publications/factshts/monograph.htm

86. It is Who You Know That Counts: Intergroup Contact and Judgments about Race-Based Exclusion, accessed September 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4258874/