Scapegoating is best understood as a psychological mechanism for managing anxiety and aggression and a religious symbol for transferring guilt and restoring communal order. Both dimensions illuminate how individuals and societies deal with conflict, shame, and the need for moral coherence.
 |
| The Scapegoat by Geoffrey Sutton and AI 2026 |
At its core, scapegoating is a defense mechanism in which a person or group displaces blame, frustration, or aggression onto an innocent target. (Sutton, 2026).
Cite this post
Sutton, G. W. (2026, July 6). Scapegoating-as a psychological concept. Psychology: Concepts and Theories. https://suttonpsychology.blogspot.com/2026/07/scapegoating-as-psychological-concept.html
This process allows the aggressor to maintain a positive self-image and reduce internal tension.
“Scapegoating is blame shifting. Scapegoats are blamed to reconcile conflict. Scapegoating is underwritten by two principles; to blame those who should not be blamed and not blame those who should be blamed.” Sawyer, 2022)
“The phenomenon of scapegoating has been a recurring theme throughout
human history. It involves the displacement of blame and aggression onto a particular individual or group, often those who are already marginalized and vulnerable. This act of scapegoating serves to maintain social cohesion and deflect attention from the systemic issues that contribute to conflict and injustice." (Gorka, 2025)
Psychological Principles and Scapegoating
Scapegoating is a way to displace aggression
When direct expression of anger is risky or socially unacceptable, people redirect hostility toward a safer target. Freud’s theory of displacement helps explain this dynamic. Displacement of Aggression: When a group faces internal tension, systemic failure, or the threat of a loss of status, the collective frustration becomes too painful to face. To avoid the pain of internal self-reflection, the group unconsciously seeks an external object to "hold" that frustration. By projecting their failures onto one person (or "the other"), they can purge the group’s guilt and re-establish a sense of purity.
Scapegoating reflects group biases and strengthens social identity
Social Identity Theory begins with the premise that individuals define their own identities with regard to social groups and that such identifications work to protect and bolster self-identity. The creation of group identities involves both the categorization of one’s “in-group” with regard to an “out-group” and the tendency to view one’s own group with a positive bias vis-a-vis the out-group. (Islam, 2014)
When an organization is threatened, members become more vigilant about who "belongs." The scapegoat is often someone who is perceived as "different" or "questioning," thereby threatening the group's "ontological security." By ejecting the scapegoat, the group reinforces its boundaries and proves its loyalty to the collective.
Group cohesion — Scapegoating can strengthen an in‑group by creating a shared “enemy,” reinforcing identity and solidarity.
Scapegoating reduces anxiety — Complex or threatening problems feel more manageable when attributed to a single, identifiable source.
Scapegoating factors
Scapegoating often emerges during periods of economic stress or social instability, leading to prejudice against marginalized groups.
Three Levels of Scapegoating
• Individual level — A student blames a classmate for their own poor performance.
• Family level — One child becomes the “problem child,” absorbing the family’s unspoken conflicts.
• Societal level — Minority groups are blamed for economic downturns or political instability.
“Bureaucracy is everyone’s favorite scapegoat because it can be plausibly blamed for almost anything and because it is unlikely to fight back.” Hinterleitner (2025).
Scapegoating in Society and Culture
These examples show how groups displace blame to protect themselves from anxiety, responsibility, or complexity.
Workplace blame-shifting — A team blames one employee for a failed project to avoid confronting systemic problems or leadership failures.
Family “problem child” — One child absorbs the family’s unspoken conflict, becoming the identified source of dysfunction.
School bullying — A socially vulnerable student becomes the target of collective teasing or exclusion, allowing peers to bond through shared hostility.
Economic downturns — Immigrant groups or minorities are blamed for unemployment or inflation, simplifying complex economic realities.
Public health crises — During epidemics, certain communities are blamed for “causing” disease, even when evidence contradicts the narrative.
Political rhetoric — Leaders blame opposing parties, bureaucracies, or foreign nations for domestic failures to maintain support and avoid accountability.
Social media pile-ons — A single individual becomes the focus of online outrage, allowing the crowd to express anger without addressing deeper cultural issues.
Community scandals — A single person is blamed for institutional wrongdoing, protecting the reputation of the larger organization.
---
Scapegoating in Religious Communities
These examples highlight how spiritual language, moral narratives, and theological framing intensify the scapegoating process.
Labeling dissenters as “divisive” — Members who raise concerns about leadership or ethics are framed as threats to unity rather than contributors to accountability.
Casting someone as “unrepentant” — A person who questions doctrine or practice is portrayed as spiritually dangerous, justifying exclusion or discipline.
Blaming individuals for communal sin — A member’s behavior is said to bring “God’s displeasure” on the whole group, making them responsible for collective anxiety.
Purity culture dynamics — Someone who violates purity norms becomes the symbol of impurity, allowing the group to reaffirm its moral boundaries.
The “heretic” label — A person with differing theological views becomes the repository for fear, anger, or insecurity about doctrinal change.
Leadership protection — When a leader behaves abusively, the victim is blamed for “causing trouble,” preserving the leader’s authority and the group’s stability.
Spiritual explanations for conflict — A member is accused of being “under spiritual attack” or “in rebellion,” shifting attention away from organizational dysfunction.
Excommunication as anxiety management — Removing a member is framed as a holy act to “protect the flock,” even when the underlying issue is systemic harm.
References
Hinterleitner, Markus, 'Politicians’ Favorite Scapegoat', Blaming Bureaucracy: Reckoning with a Problematic Political Activity (Oxford, 2025; online edn, Oxford Academic, 15 Sept. 2025), https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198980186.003.0005, accessed 1 July 2026.
Islam, G. (2014). Social Identity Theory. In: Teo, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_289
Sawyer, 2022 The Scapegoats. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360034732_The_Scapegoats
Note
This page is for education and not personal advice. Consult health care providers for the most recent information and personal concerns.
Post Author
Geoffrey W. Sutton, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Evangel University, holds a master’s degree in counseling and a PhD in psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia. His postdoctoral work encompassed education and supervision in forensic and neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. As a licensed psychologist, he conducted clinical and neuropsychological evaluations and provided psychotherapy for patients in various settings, including schools, hospitals, and private offices. During his tenure as a professor, Dr. Sutton taught courses on psychotherapy, assessment, and research. He has authored over one hundred publications, including books, book chapters, and articles in peer-reviewed psychology journals.
Comments