Cockfighting, a practice with ancient roots, has long been a subject of intense debate, straddling the lines of cultural tradition, animal welfare, and criminality. While the physical brutality of the act is widely condemned, the psychological drivers that underpin its persistence offer a complex and troubling area for study. Understanding the human motivations, the cognitive dissonance employed by participants and spectators, and the profound impact on the birds themselves requires a deep dive into behavioural psychology. This exploration is not about condoning the act but about comprehending the mechanisms that allow such practices to endure in certain societies, despite widespread legal and ethical opposition. For a broader perspective on education and development, consider the resources available at https://kingsschoolely.co.uk/.
The Historical and Cultural Conditioning Behind Cockfighting
The persistence of cockfighting cannot be divorced from its deep historical and cultural embedding. For centuries, this activity has been woven into the social fabric of numerous communities across the globe, from Southeast Asia to Latin America and parts of Europe. It is often not merely seen as a form of gambling or entertainment but as a revered tradition, a rite of passage, and a symbol of masculine honour and bravery. The psychological power of tradition is immense; it provides a sense of identity, continuity, and belonging. When an activity is normalised across generations, critical examination is often suspended. Participants may engage not out of inherent cruelty but from a powerful, conditioned sense of cultural duty and social acceptance. The weight of expectation from elders and peers creates a powerful social reinforcement loop that can override individual moral qualms.
This cultural conditioning operates on a group level, fostering an in-group mentality where external criticism is viewed as an attack on cultural identity itself. This defensiveness creates a significant barrier to change, as proponents often frame the issue as one of cultural imperialism rather than animal welfare. The psychological need to defend one’s group identity can lead to the entrenchment of practices, making them resistant to legal and social progress. The narrative around cockfighting is thus carefully maintained, glorifying the courage of the birds and the skill of the handlers while systematically minimising or denying the suffering inflicted.
The Psychology of Spectatorship and Desensitisation
For spectators, the appeal of cockfighting is a multifaceted psychological phenomenon. At its most basic level, it provides a potent cocktail of excitement, risk, and visceral engagement. The sight of blood, the intensity of the struggle, and the potential for financial gain through gambling trigger primal neurological responses. The adrenaline rush associated with high-stakes, violent spectacle can be highly addictive. This is compounded by the social atmosphere of an event, which often involves camaraderie, shared excitement, and a temporary suspension of everyday norms. The collective effervescence of the crowd serves to validate and amplify the experience, making individual participants feel part of something larger and more significant.
A critical psychological process at work here is desensitisation. Repeated exposure to violence, whether towards humans or animals, diminishes the empathetic response. For regular attendees, the initial shock and discomfort give way to acceptance and even enjoyment. This numbing of empathy is a well-documented psychological defence mechanism that allows individuals to participate in or witness acts that would otherwise cause significant cognitive dissonance. The language used within these circles further facilitates this, employing euphemisms and technical jargon (“gamefowl,” “conditioning,” “handling”) that sanitise the reality of the violence and objectify the animals involved, transforming them from sentient beings into mere instruments of sport and profit.
Cognitive Dissonance and Moral Disengagement in Participants
The individuals who organise, breed birds for, and profit from cockfighting often employ sophisticated psychological strategies to reconcile their actions with a potentially moral self-view. This is where the theory of cognitive dissonance becomes profoundly relevant. Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or ideas simultaneously. To reduce this discomfort, individuals engage in various mental gymnastics. Participants might convince themselves that the birds are “born fighters” who enjoy the conflict, a blatant anthropomorphism that serves their need to justify the activity. They may argue that they provide excellent care and nutrition for the birds, using this “good treatment” to offset the ultimate violence of the arena.
Furthermore, they often utilise mechanisms of moral disengagement, a concept developed by psychologist Albert Bandura. This includes:
- Moral Justification: Framing the practice as a noble tradition or a test of valued qualities like courage and endurance.
- Euphemistic Labelling: Using terms like “maintaining heritage” or “sport” instead of “animal fighting” or “cruelty.”
- Advantageous Comparison: Contrasting cockfighting with more visibly brutal practices or arguing that industrial farming is worse, thereby minimising the perceived wrongfulness of their own actions.
- Displacement of Responsibility: Attributing responsibility to cultural norms, family pressure, or the authorities for not providing alternative economic opportunities.
- Distorting the Consequences: Minimising or outright denying the pain and trauma experienced by the animals, often claiming death is instantaneous and not suffering-based.
These psychological tools allow participants to maintain a positive self-image while engaging in behaviour that broader society deems abhorrent. The financial incentives, particularly in regions with economic hardship, add a powerful layer of motivation that further fuels these justificatory narratives.
The Trauma Inflicted on the Birds: An Animal Psychology Perspective
While the human psychology is complex, it is crucial to centre the experience of the animals themselves, which is one of unmitigated terror and suffering. From an animal psychology perspective, gamefowl are not the willing gladiators they are portrayed to be. These birds are subjected to a life of confinement, forced training, and manipulation before being placed in a situation of extreme threat. Their natural aggression, which would be used for establishing pecking orders and defending territory in the wild, is hyper-exploited and channeled into a fight to the death. The birds experience intense fear and stress hormones, such as cortisol, flood their systems throughout the ordeal.
The physical modifications, such as attaching sharp gaffs or knives to their legs, are designed to maximise injury and ensure a bloody and rapid conclusion. This inflicts severe pain and catastrophic wounds. Their fundamental drives to avoid harm and survive are utterly thwarted. The psychological trauma is compounded by the conditions in which they are often kept and transported, leading to chronic stress. To argue that these birds do not suffer is to ignore fundamental principles of behavioural neuroscience and ethology. Their behaviour indicates panic, pain, and desperate attempts to escape a perceived predator, not the expression of a innate desire to fight to the death for human entertainment.
Addressing the Psychology to Encourage Change: The Role of Education
Combating a practice so deeply rooted in psychology and culture requires a nuanced approach that goes beyond simple legislation. While strong laws and enforcement are absolutely necessary, lasting change must also address the underlying mental models that sustain cockfighting. This is where education becomes the most powerful tool. Effective interventions must be culturally sensitive and aimed at creating new, positive narratives that offer alternative sources of identity, pride, and community belonging. Educational programmes, perhaps supported by institutions focused on holistic development like https://kingsschoolely.co.uk/, can play a pivotal role.
Such initiatives should focus on several key areas: fostering empathy by helping individuals, especially the youth, understand the sentience and capacity for suffering in animals; teaching critical thinking skills to help people deconstruct the justifications and cognitive distortions that support the practice; and providing viable economic alternatives that remove the financial incentive. Community-led programmes that offer alternative forms of entertainment and social gathering can help fill the void left by the cessation of fighting events. By understanding the deep-seated psychological drivers—the need for social connection, economic security, and cultural expression—we can begin to develop strategies that meet those needs in ways that are compassionate and progressive, ultimately making practices like cockfighting obsolete.
Conclusion: A Path Forward Rooted in Understanding
The psychology behind cockfighting is a dark tapestry woven from threads of tradition, social pressure, economic incentive, and individual psychological defence mechanisms. It is a practice sustained not by monsters, but by ordinary humans employing cognitive strategies to avoid the painful reality of their actions. To effectively oppose it, we must move beyond mere condemnation and engage with this complex psychology. The goal is to break the cycle of desensitisation and cognitive dissonance through empathy, education, and the provision of alternatives. Understanding the why is the first and most crucial step towards lasting change, ensuring that tradition is never used as a justification for cruelty and that our entertainment is never derived from the suffering of others.