Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:44:43.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What do People Mean when Speaking of Evilness?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Mª Nieves Quiles ,
Mª Dolores Morera ,
Ana Delia Correa  and
Jacques Philippe Leyens
Mª Nieves Quiles*
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna (Spain)
Mª Dolores Morera
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna (Spain)
Ana Delia Correa
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna (Spain)
Jacques Philippe Leyens
Affiliation:
Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mª Nieves Quiles del Castillo. Departamento de Psicología Cognitiva, Social y Organizacional. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad de La Laguna. Campus de Guajara S/N. 38205 La Laguna. Tenerife. (Spain). E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The term evilness started to become popular in social psychology after the publication in 1999 of the special issue edited by Arthur G. Miller, “Perspectives on evil and violence”. It is usually used to define behaviors that are extremely and strongly harmful. However, the concept is still imprecise and needs to be empirically delineated. This article attempts to answer the following questions. What is evilness? What is the difference between aggression and evilness? We conducted several studies with three goals: to analyze how laypersons and experts define evilness, to verify whether laypeople distinguish between different intensities of evilness, and to determine the dimensions that predict aggression and evilness. The results offer preliminary answers to the three questions.

El término maldad comienza a difundirse en psicología social tras la publicación en 1999 del monográfico editado por Arthur G. Miller, “Perspectives on evil and violence”. Usualmente se emplea para definir acciones extremas e intensamente dañinas, pero el concepto es impreciso y necesita ser delimitado empíricamente. Este artículo trata de responder a las preguntas ¿Qué es la maldad? ¿Qué diferencias existen entre la maldad y el concepto tradicional de agresión? Para ello, llevamos a cabo varios estudios con tres objetivos: analizar cómo legos y expertos definen la maldad, verificar si las personas legas diferencian niveles de intensidad de la maldad y determinar las dimensiones predictivas de la maldad y la agresión. Los resultados ofrecen respuestas preliminares a las tres cuestiones.

Keywords

aggressionevilnessharmagresiónmaldaddaño
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , November 2010 , pp. 788 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, C. F. (1997). The political psychology of evil. Political Psychology, 18, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. A. & Carnagey, N. L. (2004). Violent Evil and the General Aggression model. In Miller, A. G. (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp.168–192). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1967). Eichman in Jerusalem. A report on the banality of evil. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Causes and consequences of delegitimization: Models of conflict and ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (2000) Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. (3ª ed). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Campbell, W. K. (1999). The intrinsic appeal of evil: Sadism, sensational thrills, and threatened egotism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 210–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, L. (1999). Evil is more than banal: Situationism and the concept of evil. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 246–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Standford Prison Experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cascardi, M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1992). Depressive symptomatology, self-esteem, and self-blame in battered women, Journal of Family Violence, 7, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darley, J. M. (1992). Social organization for the production of evil. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition and behavior. A new view. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N. (2002). Empathy-related emotional responses, altruism, and their socialization. In Davidson, R., & Harrington, A. (Eds.), Vision of Compassion: Western Scientist and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature (pp. 131–164). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. & Glick, P. (2002). Emotions up and down: Intergroup emotions result from status and competition. In Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 247–264). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, P. (1989). Human nature and suffering. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2009). Persistent dispositionalism in interactionist clothing: Fundamental attribution error in explaining prison abuse. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 807–814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, F. E. (1993). Ordinary people and extraordinary evil: A report on the beguilings of evil. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Miller, A. G. (1999). Harming other people: Perspectives on evil and violence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 176–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, A. G., Gordon, A. K., & Buddie, A. M. (1999). Accounting for Evil and Cruelty: Is to explain to condone? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 254–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiles, M. N., Morera, M. D., Correa, A. D., & Leyens, J. P. (2008). Evilness. In Morales, J. F., Huici, C., Gaviria, E., & Gómez, A. (Eds.), Method, theory and investigation in Social Psychology (pp. 559–572). Madrid: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, C. R., & Serres, F. (1999). Effects of parental verbal aggression on children's self-esteem and school marks. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 339–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and the other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Staub, E. (1999). The roots of evil: Social conditions, culture, personality, and basic human needs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 176–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waller, J. (2002). Becoming evil. How ordinary people commit genocide and mass killing. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychology of evil: Situationist perspective on recruiting good people to engage in anti-social acts. Research in Social Psychology, 11, 125–133.Google Scholar
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators. In Miller, A. G. (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21–50). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Zimbardo, P. G., Banks, W. C., Haney, C., & Jaffe, D. (1973, April). The mind is a formidable jailer: A Pirandellian prison. The New York Times Magazine, 38–60.Google Scholar