Conscious Ethical Integration: A Practical Solution for Mitigating Armed Conflict

Richard Mathewson, JD, U.S. Army Veteran

America has long been a leader in global affairs.  As a Constitutional Republic, this country represents liberties and individual rights that much of the world has not experienced but many desire.  This inevitably invokes envy in others.  Many choose to criticize and degrade America instead of contributing to its improvement and progression.  But for all the criticism and animosity directed at the United States, it continues to shine as a beacon of freedom for the world to see.  It isn’t perfect and it has its faults and needs improvement.  But for all its vices, its virtues are greater.  Despite the naysayers and malicious actors who seek its destruction, there are more who wish to experience the opportunities it offers and help it become a more perfect Union.  But the threats to its sovereignty remain a clear and present danger.  The freedoms that characterize America also make it a target.  Paradoxically, what makes America attractive to many makes it repulsive to some.       

Such a big responsibility in global affairs inevitably involves prevalent military presence.  A strong military is necessary to protect the Republic.  Whether used defensively or offensively, the American fighting forces are a bulwark of freedom that safeguards national sovereignty and protects against those who would do the country harm.  The American armed forces have a noble lineage in the history of the modern world.  These forces are set apart as a highly professional efficient fighting machine on the global stage of world events.  But such notoriety, while laudable, carries an expectation of more responsibility.  The more visible and involved the military is in global conflicts, the greater the need for accountability.           

America’s dynamic involvement in various conflicts requires greater compliance with international humanitarian laws for war.  But laws alone are often not enough to ensure compliance.  Simply forbidding something does not ensure obedience.  This is especially relevant to armed conflict because it involves the taking of human life and infringement on human rights.  Thus, although adherence to humanitarian laws and rules is of great importance in war, ensuring the warfighters actually comply with these laws is critical. 

Conscious ethical integration is more effective than simply briefing warfighters on laws that control their conduct because the warfighter internalizes ethics which leads to greater compliance with the laws that protect human rights.  This Conscious Ethical Integration model is consistent with psychological research that shows individuals are more likely to align their conduct with their beliefs and attitudes.  By training the warfighters in ethical conflict, they are more likely to act ethically in armed conflict situations.  This model can enhance the overall ethical competence of American fighting forces, thereby mitigating abuses of human rights in armed conflict.

America’s fighting forces are exemplary.  Although America cannot simply disengage from armed conflict because war will still exist, it can ensure its engagement is ethical.  Just as the United States has led the world in other ways, it can continue to lead through its professional fighting forces.  America is an exceptional country, and the American experiment has not failed.  But for it to succeed, it must continue to improve—especially its armed forces.  And this involves enhancing the warfighters’ understanding of what is right and wrong in accordance with international humanitarian standards relating to universal principles of morality.  This is not an impractical goal.  Becoming a better fighting force is not just possible, it’s a duty America has to the world in which it interacts.  Nothing in the human condition is darker than the scourge of war but no light is brighter than the virtuous warfighter who acts ethically despite this war.               

Challenges of Defining Armed Conflict

Conflict is part and parcel of the human condition.  Regardless of the argument for or against it, it existed as far back as recorded history reaches and it’s here to stay for the foreseeable future.  To understand better why it is, we must first understand what it is.  The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines conflict as, “a difference that prevents agreement : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)…[and also]…to be different, opposed, or contradictory : to fail to be in agreement or accord.”¹  Simply put, conflict is difference between parties that inhibits agreement.  But armed conflict is anything but simple.

In an opinion paper in 2024, the International Committee of the Red Cross described armed conflict as “a de facto state of hostilities dependent on neither a declaration nor recognition of the existence of ‘war’ by its parties.”²  Recognizing the difficulty in characterizing armed conflict, the paper went on to state, “there is no central authority under international law to classify a situation as an armed conflict; parties to a conflict need to determine the legal framework applicable to the conduct of their military operations.”³ 

A ruling by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda established by the United Nations Security Council in 1994 to address genocide and other international humanitarian law violations previously committed in Rwanda appeared to embrace this ambiguity in defining armed conflict,

…the definition of an armed conflict per se is termed in the abstract, and whether or not a situation can be described as an “armed conflict”, meeting the criteria of common Article 3, is to be decided upon on a case-by-case basis.⁴     

In its 2004 edition of The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence attempted, albeit broadly, to describe armed conflict:

3.3. Neither the Geneva Conventions nor Additional Protocol I contain any definition of the expression “armed conflict” but the following guidance has been given: a. “any difference arising between States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed conflict”; b. “an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed groups within a State”.⁵

The United States Department of Defense (recently rebranded the “Department of War”) appeared to fare no better in its description of armed conflict in its 2023 Law of War Manual where it stated, “there is no single legal definition of ‘war,’ ‘hostilities,’ or ‘armed conflict,’ and the definition of these terms has varied in both domestic and international law.”⁶  Thus, a more clear and concise definition of armed conflict remains elusive and is left open to interpretation.  

Universal Consensus on Mitigating Armed Conflict

Despite there being no international consensus on what, exactly, armed conflict is, there is universal agreement that it exists and that it must be mitigated by humanitarian laws that respect human rights and preserve human life.  The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations states:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…⁷

Thus, this international organization came about because of the “scourge of war” with the purpose of preventing future wars and implementing humanitarian laws that preserve “fundamental human rights” and protect humanity during armed conflict.  The entire premise of the United Nations Charter, then, is preservation and protection, not infringement and destruction.  This purpose echoes in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocols Additional to the Conventions which are “international treaties that constitute a component of international humanitarian law.”⁸  Strong themes of amelioration of suffering, humane treatment of the enemy, and protection of the innocent during armed conflict inhere the four conventions:

Geneva Convention I: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

Geneva Convention II: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea

Geneva Convention III: relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Geneva Convention IV: relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War⁹

In addition to modern universal agreement that the scourge of war is to be avoided at all costs, there are also historical precedents supporting this aversion to armed conflict.  An ancient collection of laws from the 2nd millennium B.C.E. known as the Code of Hammurabi stated the following in its Epilogue:

LAWS of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established.  A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land. Hammurabi, the protecting king am I.  I have not withdrawn myself from the men…I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place.  I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them.  With…mighty weapons, I have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted…I cherish the inhabitants of the land…in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them.  That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans…¹⁰

The Geneva Conventions are similar to the Code of Hammurabi in that both are laws that focus on the preservation of peace and protection of the innocent despite war.  The Code of Hammurabi discussed armed force in the context of ensuring peace much like Article 51 of the U.N. Charter permits “measures [taken by the Security Council] necessary to maintain international peace and security.”¹¹  The paradox of using war to achieve peace is reflected by the 4^th-5^th century C.E. Roman military strategist Vegetius from his work, De Re Militari, where he wrote, “let him who desires peace, prepare for war.”  But even in these situations, armed conflict is not the goal; preservation of peace is.  The Art of War, a Chinese military treatise from 5^th century B.C.E., went even further in its aversion to armed conflict when it taught, “to subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill…those skilled in war subdue the enemy’s army without battle.”¹²  In other words, good military strategy is to disarm the enemy without using force at all.

Thus, historical accounts trend toward mitigating armed conflict as opposed to escalation.  This remains constant even when armed conflict is necessary to ensure peace.  Without such restraint, war becomes an end in itself versus a means to an end.  The Art of War said, “War is like unto fire; those who will not put aside weapons are themselves consumed by them.”¹³  This same truism echoed in the words of Jesus from the Judeo-Christian book of Matthew when he said, “[p]ut up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”¹⁴  Thus, there is both general historical precedent and modern universal consensus on avoiding armed conflict and mitigating it when it occurs. 

Nevertheless, war is part of the human condition and to preserve and protect innocent human life, those responsible for defense must prepare for armed conflict reflecting the maxim, “it is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.”  With this in mind, we will now discuss how conscious ethical integration can mitigate armed conflict.

Insufficiency of Laws Per Se to Mitigate Armed Conflict

Despite the lack of consensus on defining armed conflict, there does appear to be agreement in the international humanitarian “laws” that have been devised to control and manage it.  These laws explicitly state their purpose of respecting and protecting human life during armed conflict.  They promote human rights by codifying rules of engagement and standards of conduct that apply to war with the ultimate goal of ensuring peace.  For example, the Preamble of the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949…relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts starts out by “Proclaiming the[] earnest wish to see peace prevail among peoples.”¹⁵  The Preamble to Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949…relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts heavily emphasizes humanitarian concerns:

The High Contracting Parties, Recalling that the humanitarian principles enshrined in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, constitute the foundation of respect for the human person in cases of armed conflict not of an international character,

Recalling furthermore that international instruments relating to human rights offer a basic protection to the human person,

Emphasizing the need to ensure a better protection for the victims of those armed conflicts,

Recalling that, in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates or the public conscience…¹⁶

Thus, there are a plethora of laws and rules that pertain to armed conflict with a central humanitarian theme.  But laws per se do not ensure compliance with the underlying intent.  The letter of the law is often far separated from its spirit.  One can know of a law without really understanding its effect and force.  In this case, knowledge of a law alone is insufficient to bring about the desired effect of that law.  To be meaningful, laws that control armed conflict must become an internalized reality versus a learned ritual.     

In this sense, laws aren’t just inanimate artifacts.  They are instructional “spells” that bring about manifest conduct.  Laws have psychological and physiological effects because they act as suggestions that the mind translates into actionable behavior.  Laws can initiate action or neutralize it.  This is a power that most are not conscious of.  But this is why military leadership must focus training on their warfighters internalizing laws of war that determine ethical treatment of enemy combatants and civilians during armed conflict.  Like a code by which a computer program executes its functions, so too the laws of war determine the conduct of the warfighters but only when they are programmed into the operating system properly.

As long as the law of war remains severed from those who wage it (because it is not an internalized understanding), armed conflict will reflect the law of the jungle.  This doesn’t presume every warfighter must possess JAG-level knowledge of the law of war.  Such a monumental task would be impractical and economically prohibitive, and it would interfere with the ongoing military mission of warfighting.  Rather, routine training should integrate the “ethical” aspects inherent in the law of war. 

This is more important now because the weapons used in armed conflict are more destructive.  Technology has advanced far—destruction is much closer and more potent than previous eras.  More weapons are now “weapons of mass destruction” with greater precision and higher kill rates than before.  Because the toys have advanced far beyond the maturity of the humans playing with them, there is greater need for clear and concise understanding of the safety manuals.  But to honor humanitarian principles, this understanding must be ethically informed.  

Importantly, there is an urgent need for ethical guardrails that prevents unnecessary and unlawful misuse of these weapons.  When the annihilation of millions of people is as quick as one click of a key or touch of a screen, the only thing that prevents pulling the trigger is discernment.  And the right choice can only be made when the programming has encoded this idea of “right” in the individual.  The urgency of ethical oversight is even more relevant with the integration of AI into weapons systems.  The more AI assumes control over weapons systems, the greater the need for ethical oversight to control the AI. 

Thus, laws may provide general guidance, but they are often rigid and fixed to specific scenarios thereby failing to appreciate the nebulous nature of modern armed conflict.  However, conscious ethical integration informs discernment within the active situation as it evolves and shapeshifts.  This approach takes each situation as it is and unfolds and applies the universal standard of “right” to the facts of the situation.  Here, the law provides the parameter within which ethical decisions are made but ethical integration is what determines the choices that are made within the confines of the law.

Internal and External Consistency and Validity of Ethics

Much like the Code of Hammurabi in the early history of humanity, the Code of Ethics must control the conduct of war.  Not simply rigid static laws.  But an active, conscious understanding of ethical principles and standards that determine conduct in armed conflict.

What is “right” is as active as the conduct it attaches to.  Warfighters must be taught to look for the most ethical choice in every situation.  Just like they’re trained in situational awareness for threat detection, they must learn to discern right from wrong in armed conflict.  If this sounds like a big challenge, it really isn’t.  Humans have a built-in capacity for judging right from wrong.  We’ve been learning this our whole lives.  This isn’t something confined to the few geniuses in the race.  It’s species-specific.  An inherent potential awaiting activation. 

Our ability to make ethically informed decisions sets us apart from animals.  It follows that this higher order ability unique to humans is most fitting to ensure the survival of our species during armed conflict when the threat to it is the greatest.  But such a superior capability requires a greater degree of maturity to ensure the most qualified use with the least amount of abuse.  To those whom much is given, much will be required. Warfighters have the power of life and death in their hands.  What is murder for the citizen is a successful mission for the soldier.  This is no small thing.  And the seriousness of this power does not change simply because it is in the context of armed conflict.  Deprivation of human life is a serious matter regardless of the manner in which it occurs.  The number of veterans that suffer from PTSD and other mental disorders from taking human life, despite its characterization as lawful armed conflict, is evidence of this.   

But ethics is nothing if not applicable to those we hold in contempt.  This is because ethics is about doing the right thing even with people who are in the wrong.  Ethics is about justice in the face of injustice.  Without a fire, the lead cannot be transformed into gold.  In this light, conscious ethical integration in armed conflict is a noble duty because it reaches for the highest aspiration in the lowest depth of humanity—war.

Ethics is of paramount importance because what is “right” is a universal truth that exists beyond the individual actor “choosing” whether to do right or wrong.  Here, the actor is distinguished from the principle acted upon.  But the principle remains unchanged regardless of the actor’s decision whether to act on that principle.  What is right is right regardless of the choice to act on it.  The internal and external consistency of ethics doesn’t change just because the environment does.  This fact makes conscious ethical integration even more relevant to the constantly evolving nature of armed conflict.  

The consistency of ethics across time and contexts is reflected in the shared values judgment given to certain humanitarian considerations found in the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, Human Rights, etc.  The universality of ethical expectations relating to human beings reflects an underlying agreement in its external validity.  In this sense, ethics is one of the few things in this world that has strong cross-cultural consistency and validity with longitudinal rigor—it never changes.  What was right thousands of years ago is still right, even now.  The same with what is wrong.

Psychological Effects of Conscious Ethical Integration

Ethics, then, is a collective standard.  And war is a product of collective disagreement.

War is predicated on division.  Thus, it follows that any long-term solution to reducing war and diminishing division is to enhance ethical standards that inform conflict. Because ethics are universal, integrating ethics into the operation of warfare is more likely to unify the opposing sides in a conflict—regardless of the disparities between them.  In other words, if that conflict is conducted ethically, each side is more likely to recognize the universal standard, which can mitigate the trend toward further division.  If I, as a warfighter, observe the enemy acting ethically, despite the fighting, this will impact me on a universal level of respect.  Right is right, even if I don’t speak the same language or eat the same food or celebrate the same holidays as the enemy.  I don’t need to agree with the enemy personally to recognize the ethical standards of its conduct in conflict.  Because ethics are universal, implementing ethics in conflict will likely encourage unity over division.  But even if unity is not feasible, ethical conflict is still the right thing to do.

Implementation doesn’t mean simply correlating ethics with the conduct of conflict.  This is already happening.  There are plenty of “laws” that determine what conduct is allowed and what conduct is prohibited (e.g., Law of War).  If these laws were sufficient, conflict would be diminished.  But this isn’t the case.  Thus, laws per se aren’t sufficient to solve conflict.  But this doesn’t mean laws are necessarily ineffective because a law merely defines what is or is not acceptable behavior in that society (the purpose of a law is to create a standard to follow not choose for the person).  Thou shalt and thou shalt not simply inform the citizen what they can and cannot do.  It’s not the law that determines justice, but the choices made and conduct engaged in that is right or wrong.  The law is suggestive; the individual choice is determinative.  Thus, to the degree the law suggests ethical behavior and the individual chooses to act on that suggestion in their conduct, the law is effective.  But if the individual fails to comply, the law is of no effect.  For this reason, a law in itself will not necessarily prevent war or diminish conflict.  

Only ethical integration on a conscious level will mitigate conflict because this influences choices and conduct.  Much like the coding controls the functions in a computer, so too the ethical programming influences behavior with people.  Psychological research shows that when someone has committed to a course of action, they typically continue with that course of action.^{17, 18, 19}  This is consistent with cognitive dissonance theory that suggests people desire consistency in their own attitudes and behaviors and become uncomfortable with inconsistencies.²⁰  Furthermore, once a person has committed to a specific behavior, they are more likely to engage in similar consistent behaviors.²¹  Thus, increasing ethical competence is more likely to produce conscious ethical integration in armed conflict.  If the warfighter believes in what is right, they are more likely to do the right thing in war because they desire their conduct to align with their beliefs.

Conscious ethical integration is practical.  It’s not some fantastical theory.  Warfighters are trained to kill the enemy.  During their active military service, they are taught mantras with such regularity that long after this service is completed, they still respond affirmatively to certain military words or phrases.  These mantras invoke preconditioned responses in soldiers as effectively after their military service as they did during it.  This reflects the effectiveness of psychological conditioning.  The mechanism is the same—it’s merely the content that differs.  Thus, conditioning warfighters to be conscious of the ethics of their conduct during their active service in the military is a practical solution to mitigate unlawful and inhumane conduct in armed conflict.

Challenges with Conscious Ethical Integration

To be sure, not everyone is constituted for this.  There are some who are simply unable or unwilling to consciously integrate ethics into their conduct.  Whether from cognitive deficiency, personality dissonance, or a diminished morality, some people are not ethical no matter how much training they receive.  Nevertheless, for reasons discussed below, this may be less of a problem than it seems at first glance.  

A conscious ethical integration model not only enhances overall ethical competence in the armed forces; it also clearly distinguishes those cases that fail to integrate.  Thus, like other programs, this model effectively “weeds out” the individuals who don’t take to the program.  This is beneficial because these individuals would have eventually been identified anyway by their unethical conduct in armed conflict (although this may be more efficient because it would catch these less ethical individuals earlier in their career versus years later after the military spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on them).  Thus, that individual can be rehabilitated early on or, or if this is unlikely, removed from the armed forces.  Either way, the screening mechanism inherent in this model automatically identifies individuals who were not fit for military service.  Whether rehabilitation or removal, this early intervention saves money and resources and, importantly, mitigates the embarrassment and liability from subsequent unlawful conduct in war.

Another challenge is related to the belief that ethical enhancement has an emboldening effect where the warfighter is more likely to disobey orders that they perceive as being unethical.  This concern is overblown for several reasons.  First, America has one of the most professional fighting forces in the world.  With all its faults and imperfections, it is by far more ethical than not as a general rule.  Second, the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as other relevant rules and regulations do not stop applying to the warfighter simply because of increased ethical competence.  Quite the contrary.  The more ethical the fight force, the more efficient and effective it will be, and the less liability it will have because its conduct will comport with the laws and rules controlling armed conflict.  Third, a more ethical warfighter makes for a more humane war.  This is not only the point of conscious ethical integration, but of international humanitarian laws pertaining to war.  Thus, ethical competence raises the overall standard of armed conflict because it mitigates the conduct that international humanitarian laws were developed to address in the first place.

CONCLUSION

Conscious ethical integration is a practical solution for mitigating armed conflict.  It can be added to pre-existing training programs as a supplement without overburdening costs or workloads.  Because international humanitarian laws pertaining to armed conflict share universal ethical values, conscious ethical integration has internal and external consistency and validity.  Ethical integration is more meaningful than mere knowledge of laws of war because the warfighter learns why unlawful conduct is wrong instead of just what is wrong, which reaches a deeper level of morality.  According to commitment theory in psychological research, this deeper understanding will produce ethically aligned conduct because the warfighter will want their behavior to match their moral values.  Conscious ethical integration can improve the American fighting forces, aligning their ethical competency with the humanitarian ideals inherent in the laws of war.  We may not be able to do away with armed conflict completely, but we can do better in how we engage in it.  Ultimately, this can help enhance American exceptionalism that sets the United States apart.        

Notes

________________________

¹ Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: Conflict (2024), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war.

² International Committee of the Red Cross, Opinion Paper 2024: How is the Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law? (2024), https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document_new/file_list/armed_conflict_defined_in_ihl.pdf.

³ International Committee of the Red Cross, Opinion Paper 2024: How is the Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law? (2024), https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document_new/file_list/armed_conflict_defined_in_ihl.pdf.

⁴ ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, (Judgment and Sentence), Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Chamber I (6 December 1999), 93.

⁵ UK, British Ministry of Defence, The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (Joint Service Publication 383, 2004 Edition).

⁶ Department of Defense, Law of War Manual (June 2015, Updated July 2023), 19.

⁷ United Nations, United Nations Charter (full text) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/.

⁸ Library of Congress, Geneva Conventions Materials (2026), https://www.loc.gov/collections/military-legal-resources/articles-and-essays/military-law-and-legislative-histories/geneva-conventions-materials/.

⁹ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements (2026), http://un-documents.net/gc.htm.

¹⁰ Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Code of Hammurabi (L. W. King, Trans., with commentary from Charles F. Horne, Ph.D. (1915) and The Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, by the Rev. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, M.A. Litt.D., 2008), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamcode.asp.

¹¹ United Nations, United Nations Charter (Article 51) (2026), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/.

¹² Samuel B. Griffith, Sun Tzu: The Art of War (Oxford University Press, With foreword by B. H. Liddell Hart, 1963), 77, 79.

¹³ Samuel B. Griffith, Sun Tzu: The Art of War (Oxford University Press, With foreword by B. H. Liddell Hart, 1963), 73.

¹⁴ The Holy Bible, King James Version: Matthew 26:52 (2026), King James Bible Online, https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-26/#50.

¹⁵ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-p1.htm.

¹⁶ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs, Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (2026), http://un-documents.net/gc-p2.htm.

¹⁷ Baca-Motes, K., Brown, A., Gneezy, A., Keenan, E. A., & Nelson, L. D., Commitment and Behavior Change: Evidence from the Field (Journal of Consumer Research 39(5), 2012), 1070-1084.

¹⁸ Greenwald, A. G., Carnot, C. G., Beach, R., & Young, B., Increasing Voting Behavior by Asking People if they Expect to Vote (Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 1987), 315-318. 

¹⁹ Regan, D. T. & Kilduff, M., Optimism about Elections: Dissonance Reduction at the Ballot Box (Political Psychology 9, 1988), 101-107.

²⁰ Thibodeau, R. & Aronson, E., Taking a Closer Look: Reasserting the Role of the Self-Concept in Dissonance Theory (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, 1992), 591-602.

²¹ Burger, J. M. & Caputo, D., The Low-Ball Compliance Procedure: A Meta-Analysis (Social Influence 10, 2015), 214-220.

Biography

RICHARD MATHEWSON has a diverse collection of experiences and education with an integrated understanding of power, law, human behavior, belief frameworks, and institutional mechanics.  He entered the U.S. Army young, trained as a military police officer, learning order, force, and discipline inside a structured authority.  After military service, his work as a private investigator and psychological profiler involved refining surveillance, behavioral analysis, and evidentiary precision.  He pursued formal study in religion, grounding in moral architecture and belief systems.  He completed a master's degree in psychology, deepening his understanding of trauma, radicalization, and human behavior under stress.  He earned a Juris Doctor, equipping himself with the language of law, institutional limits, and lawful force.  Now he leads The Kincade Society, operating at the intersection of governance, advocacy, and public responsibility.  He can be contacted at thekincadesociety@protonmail.com or (860) 374-8759 for further information on this topic and how The Kincade Society can offer practical solutions related to these real-world problems.