Definition: The definition that my group had come up with in lecture 1 was that evil is an intentional act that crosses social boundaries and morals that inflicts harm which results in no remorse.

This definition was then expanded on by talking about the characteristics of the individual as well as the social context. This demonstrated that there are more than one dimension of evil that needs to be taken into account for a definition. Some individual characteristics that need to be examined are a lack of remorse/empathy, sadism and severity of harm. Some social contexts are in the workplace, cults/religion and systemic discrimination. These examples show how evil is not simply one dimensional but is situated within different individual and social ideals.

Throughout the readings, it was also demonstrated that evil is not simply an act without any remorse or thought behind it. For example, the Stanford Prison experiment showed that individuals may commit evil acts based on group mentality and felt remorse after the experiment had ended. The definition as a whole has changed over the entirety of the course, and further discusses other facets of evil, such as the magnitude gap between perpetrator and victim that needs to be examined.

That being said, the definition I will now propose: evil is an act that causes harm to another individual (either physically or mentally) which can be determined by the context of a society.

Overall, I have learned that evil needs to be considered in the context of the society in which the act takes place, and further that there is no clear cut definition. Evil is such a difficult concept to define and will continue to be, no matter how hard individuals try. Lastly, it is important to realize that not all evil is propagated through intention but can be done accidentally and with remorse.

Thank you for a great course! Wishing you all the best of luck in the future. Stay safe!

In reading the final chapter of Baumeister (1997) book, the thoughts about the myths of pure evil struck me the most. Baumeister (1997) discusses how the myths of victims and the myths of the perpetrators are so vastly different, and that is one of the reasons why evil is so difficult to define. Further, victimization is essential to evil as they are the first people to spot this evil (Baumeister, 1997). I thought this was interesting as if victims are the largest part of identifying evil, why is the focus in the media more on the perpetrators? And if we focus on both the victims and perpetrators equally will this definition become less complex?

One example of the media focusing on perpetrators more than the victims is the Zodiac Killer case. I will only give a short background for those of you who do not know much about this. The Zodiac Killer operated in through the 60’s and 70’s in California, and has killed at least 5 people, although the numbers could be as high as 35+ (Travis, 2020). Even this article discusses how it is not the number of victims that has made people interested, but is the fact that he taunted people with riddles that have never been solved…and he has never been caught (Travis, 2020). In the many movies and tv shows that have showed this case, they show the victims of the crime as it makes the media more believable. In reality though, the focus of this crime has never been on the victims, but on the killer himself, even this many years later.

I believe that this case demonstrates the differences between the victims and perpetrators of evil. This shows that people will focus on the perpetrator so heavily instead of the victims, and further can show how the myths of evil can be so different. One woman who was caught by him actually escaped, and her thoughts on the acts of evil could provide really good insight into these actions. In turning focus to the perpetrator, it can make committing evil actions seem easily accessible to others and makes the definition of evil that much harder to create.

Victims and perpetrators obviously differ in their views about these crimes. Siem & Barth (2019) conducted a study on the differences of victims and perpetrators self-focus. They found that victims showed a higher degree of self-focus and shows how after an action is committed against them they shift their focus to themselves instead of feeling bad for the perpetrator (Siem & Barth, 2019). This goes back to the magnitude gap, (Baumeister, 1997) discussed as this demonstrates how both the victim and perpetrator can view the act so differently and this could be one explanation for why victims have a greater degree of self-focus.

These examples demonstrate how easy it is to focus on just the perpetrator when examining evil, but when someone opens it to examine the victim, one can understand more. In understanding how the victim can feel afterwards and how the magnitude gap comes into play, this can help to better understand why there is no concrete concept of evil. This is such a complex idea, with multiple parties with multiple views involved, and it needs to be treated as such instead of only focusing on the perpetrator. What do you think? Do you think that there needs to be an equal focus on both victim and perpetrator to find a more concrete explanation for evil?

References:

Baumeister, R. (1997). Evil: Inside human cruelty and violence. New
York, NY: W.H. Freemand and Company.

Siem, B., & Barth, M. (2019). (Not) Thinking about you: Differences in victims’ and perpetrators’ self‐focus after interpersonal and intergroup transgressions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 1007–1021. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/10.1002/ejsp.2584

Travis, A. (2020). Is the Zodiac Killer Still Out There? Probably Not, but We Can’t Know For Sure. Retrieved from https://www.distractify.com/p/is-the-zodiac-killer-still-out-there

While reading the end of Zimbardo (2008) book, some of the questions that were brought up were why the people who were at the top of the chain of command, either participated in or turned a blind eye to the horrible things that happened at Abu Gharib. As Zimbardo (2008) puts it, there was a total failure of leadership. A question that was in my mind when I heard this was: even though there was a lack of leadership in the prison, does that make it somewhat excusable for the people lower in the chain of command to commit these actions?

An utter lack of leadership, will lead to others failing, no matter which way this is put. For instance, right now the entire world is trying to cope with the COVID-19 outbreak but there is at least 1 leader who is failing to lead his country. This leader’s name is Donald Trump. In a recent press conference about what the country is doing about COVID-19, Trump talked about unrelated topics and joked about throwing the press out when talking about social distancing (Lopez, 2020). He began to boast about all of the positive things he had been doing when it came to experimental treatments, even though this had nothing to do with the virus at hand (Lopez, 2020). During this time, it is crucial that there is strong leadership coming right from the top as this is the only way people will be able to make sense of the situation and be a part of the solution. Trump has called this virus a hoax and has made racist comments about it (Lopez, 2020), so how are the citizens of the US supposed to take this seriously??

This lack of leadership displayed by Trump can lead to evil actions occurring in his country. When even the president is not taking it seriously, and making negative comments this can allow others to perceive this as okay and do it themselves. If these individuals are not practicing social distancing, they are running the risk of killing others just because they feel as though they are invincible (which can be seen as evil). Obviously the racist comments about the virus are also evil. This is just one example of how a lack of leadership can lead to evil actions occurring.

A simple lack of leadership negatively impacts people no matter how you look at it. This can further be related back to evil. This can happen in the everyday lives of working individuals, who experience a lack of supportive leadership. This means that there is a lack of support in difficult situations and a lack of feedback on how to improve (Schmidt et al., 2020). Those that experienced this lack of supportive leadership had lower self-rated health, even when there was no job strain (Schmidt et al., 2020). This would demonstrate why individuals who do not experience any type of leadership or any supportive leadership, can fall victim to committing evil acts. Their mental and physical health suffer because of this and that could be one reason why they are more likely to commit these actions.

Overall I think that a lack of leadership from the top is one of the reasons why evil actions occur especially in systemic cases. From the research I did, I do believe that a lack of leadership can help to explain why people commit these actions but does not excuse their actions. This is because they should still know that it is wrong and not just submit to whatever is being done around them. I would love to hear your thoughts on this!

References

Lopez, G. (2020, March 19). Trump’s latest coronavirus press briefing was a disastrous failure in leadership. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/19/21186855/coronavirus-trump-press-briefing-national-crisis-messaging

Schmidt, B., Herr, R. M., Jarczok, M. N., Baumert, J., Lukaschek, K., Emeny, R. T., Ladwig, K.-H., & for the KORA Investigators. (2018). Lack of supportive leadership behavior predicts suboptimal self-rated health independent of job strain after 10 years of follow-up: findings from the population-based MONICA/KORA study. International Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health, 91(5), 623–631. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/10.1007/s00420-018-1312-9

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil.  New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

This week most of our class was taken up by presentations, with a short activity at the end. The activity at the end was about what our class perceived to be the big take home message for Zimbardo (2008) book. My group thought it was that ordinary individuals such as Fredrick in Abu Gharib or John Landry in the experiment, could dehumanize people due to the power of the situation. Neither of these men were bad to start, but committed evil actions against others due to the dehumanization aspect during a specific situation. This made me think back to the presentation on capital punishment and the evilness behind it. These ordinary men and women who have to kill someone based on simply the power of situation have to dehumanize them to get the job done. Does this mean people have this evil inside of them or does the situation just bring it out? And is dehumanizing someone to commit these acts just as evil?

There are very few depictions of this in the media, and since it is allowed in very few states it is not common in the media. That does not mean it does not happen, and does not affect all individuals involved. In the new movie Clemency, a prison warden battles with her own morals while conducting executions on death row (Fagerholm, 2019). The film goes through not only her life but the man she has to help execute, even when he claims innoncence. When he is being executed, his last words go to this prison warden and asks for God to have mercy on the people who are taking his life (Fagerholm, 2019). This guard then experiences this execution like never before and finally feels that horror that makes capital punishment so evil. This film goes into the dehumanization aspect of capital punishment as she only goes through the motions with this man and does not become personally attached nor ask personal questions about him in an effort to distance herself from the act she is about to commit. Does this make her evil as she finally feels the emotions at the end? Or does it make her human, as she is only doing a job that is required of her and is trying to make it manageable?

These questions made me think even more about evil being a grey area. Especially in regards to something like capital punishment, where there are arguments for both sides. This movie made me see those that help to commit these actions as people too and that they may have difficulty with working in this field and feel emotions about it too. This made these individuals seem less evil to me. What do you think?

Prison wardens and executioners can have varying opinions on the death penalty. Some may only do it to simply have a job and others may feel that capital punishment is just in some circumstances. Bandes (2016) examined executioners, wardens and other staff who worked on death row and their attitudes about capital punishment. Many of them said that they believed retribution was key in reforming convicts, therefore meaning that their time in prison must mean something. Further, they shared a commonality: death row inmates change over time and can be redeemed (Bandes, 2016). If so many people working on death row in the US believe that inmates on death row can redeem themselves and change as people, why do they still commit these acts?

Overall, I believe that we cannot just sit and judge these people who work on death row. For many, they have differing opinions on capital punishment and can still see the good in people. In order to commit these actions then if they perceive the inmates as being able to change for the better, they must dehumanize them in order to be able to carry out these actions. Does this make them evil or just simply people trying to figure out how best to handle the situation they are in? This is a question I am wrestling with and would love to hear some thoughts!

References:

Bandes, S. A. (2016). What Executioners Can—and Cannot—Teach Us About the Death Penalty. Criminal Justice Ethics, 35(3), 183–200. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/10.1080/0731129X.2016.1238606

Fagerholm, M. (2019, December 27). Clemency movie review and film summary. Roger Ebert. Retrieved from https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/clemency-movie-review-2019

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil.  New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Does the failure to intervene as a bystander constitute as an evil inaction?? This statement was put forth in Zimbardo (2008) when he was discussing what occurred after the experiment had wrapped up. Several of the “good” guards did not intervene when the prisoners were being abused, and similarly, the prisoners did not intervene when they watched someone else being abused (Zimbardo, 2008). This question leads me to think: Does evil not have to be concrete actions but simply not doing something to stop these actions from occurring?

The bystander effect has been a phenomenon for many years. Ever since the famous Kitty Genovese case, where her neighbours all witnessed or heard her being murdered and did not do anything about it, thinking that others would. Do you think that this makes the bystanders just as bad as the murderer? I personally do not. I perceive these inactions as harmful, and I do see this as a form of evil. This does not take away from the murderer’s action being more evil and harmful to the individual and society, though. Further, the bystander effect may be fixed by such things as education.

As I am writing this, it is International Women’s Day. In light of this, it is important to see that the bystander effect does not have to take on such extreme forms as in the Stanford Prison Experiment, but everyday occurrences. Street harassment is one example of this and has occurred in 78% of women interviewed (L’Oreal Paris, 2020). Further, out of the 15,500 interviewed, only 25% of victims had someone else intervene and 86% of people did not know what to do to intervene (L’Oreal Paris, 2020). This famous company is starting a campaign called Stand Up, which will train people on bystander intervention to help defuse situations and make public spaces safer, especially for women (L’Oreal Paris, 2020). This demonstrates that many individuals experience harassment, which can be seen as a form of evil, and the inaction of not aiding these victims is not necessarily because people do not want to, which is the evil part, but because they do not have the proper education. This makes me change my perception on the bystander effect being an evil inaction a little bit more, as there is more to it than just not wanting to stand up for what is right and goes back to the education of the public on a wider level.

With this in mind, education is clearly key in fixing this issue. Santacrose, Laurita & Marchell (2020) conducted a study with undergraduate students who watched a video called “Intervene” about student’s intentions when when intervening on behalf of someone else in a number of different situations. They were conducting this study to see if it was an effective method of increasing student’s likelihood in intervening in situations (Santacrose et al., 2020). It was discovered that even after a 4 week period, these students would intervene in negative social situations (Santacrose et al., 2020), showing that interventions like these can aid in lessening the effects of inaction. Clearly, just watching an evil action occur is bad enough that educating the public needs to happen. Does this make these inactions evil, though?

Based on this information gathered, as well as what we know from the Stanford Prison Experiment, doing nothing can be considered evil. I believe that these inactions are one example of acting “evil” and to educate the public on how to change is key. On the other hand, perhaps this could lead evil acts to be pursued in the future though if people see they will not be stopped? Just some things to think about!

References:

L’Oreal Paris. (2020, March 6). L’Oreal Paris Launches International Training Program: Stand Up Against Street Harassment. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/loreal-paris-launches-international-training-program-stand-up-against-street-harassment-301018514.html

Santacrose, L. B., Laurita, A. C., & Marchell, T. C. (2020). Intervene: Modeling Pro-Social Bystander Behavior in College Students through Online Video. Health Communication, 35(4), 397–409. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/10.1080/10410236.2018.1564956

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil.  New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Ambiguous situations, or situations where there can be multiple interpretations, can lead individuals to follow the rest of the group, as was discussed in class. This can be demonstrated in Zimbardo’s experiment, where the guards followed each other’s lead to see what they were supposed to be doing in that situation (Zimbardo, 2008). The ability to follow someone else or the rest of the group in situations where someone is unsure can lead to evil acts occurring, due to the inability to speak up. Another example in history is during the Nazi regime. The newer soldiers followed the other Nazis actions, even though they were evil due to the group mentality. This can be seen in many facets of life, not just evil actions, but it is one way to explain the reasons behind how evil actions occur in a group setting.

As we saw saw in Zimbardo’s prison experiment, people followed what others were doing when they were unsure. This happened to the prisoner’s families as well when they came to visit their sons, not just the guards. They asked for permission to touch the prisoners, and easily gave up time with them when they were asked to (Zimbardo, 2008). This was due to watching the other families and seeing that there were no protests from them, so the families were less likely to put up a fight. As you can see, it does not mean that these people are necessarily evil but it can lead to evil actions occurring when everyone follows the group.

It has been shown that participating in group triggers self-expansion in individuals, or the desire to enhance one’s personal efficacy. This self-expansion leads to acting on behalf of this group and tying their identity to being apart of the group (Besta et al., 2018). These individuals were also found to be more responsive to the goals of the group. This feeling can lead individuals to pursue collective goals, as a form of group efficacy (Besta et al., 2018). This study demonstrates the power of just being in a group, and how this can affects one’s identity and mentality. This definitely occurred in Zimbardo’s experiment, and Besta et al. (2018) study further gives insight into what may have happened during the extent of their time in the “prison” that made them change their identities so drastically in such a short amount of time.

In today’s society social media has become a big part of the group mentality. There is a novel that was on Oprah’s book list called “American Dirt”. This was initially praised by many people, including famous actress Selma Hayek. That was until it was bashed by critics for capitalizing on people’s suffering (Zimmerman, 2020). After social media blasted Selma Hayek for praising this book, she changed her tune within 24 hours, quickly apologizing for her actions. That is one thing, but she probably did not read the novel and just changed her mind based on other’s opinions. That being said, some did not take back their praise and stuck by it, even though people were coming at them (Zimmerman, 2020). This shows that the group mentality on social media also has an effect on how people will follow others and fuse their identity to the group itself, as Besta et al (2018) study discussed.

Overall, group mentality is something that has been around for decades and will still continue to be, in many different ways. Those that follow others in situations where they are unsure of what to do next, can commit evil acts in the process as they succumb to the rest of the group. Remember to think for yourself before you follow others!!!

References:

Besta, T., Jaśkiewicz, M., Kosakowska, B. N., Lawendowski, R., & Zawadzka, A. M. (2018). What do I gain from joining crowds? Does self‐expansion help to explain the relationship between identity fusion, group efficacy and collective action? European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), O152–O167. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/10.1002/ejsp.2332

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil.  New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Zimmerman, J. (2020, February 3). ‘American Dirt’ controversy scores another win for mob mentality. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved from https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/american-dirt-book-tour-canceled-salma-hayek-20200203.html

Many people have heard of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, as it is one of the most famous examples of what happens when innocent people get caught up in roles that they play. Both the prisoners and the guards exhibited what occurs when you put good people in an evil situation to see what or who wins (Zimbardo, 2008). These individuals adopted new personalities to fit with the schemes already in their mind, as well as what the situation itself called for. This can be seen in many examples in the media, or in examples from history, such as the Nazi regime. Many of these soldiers were regular men who were put in this position and adopted to the roles given to them. What makes these people adopt these new schemes and personalities to fit with the situation at hand?? We will explore this a bit more, before we continue reading about the experiment.

One example of the idea of roles coming into play is when an individual adopts a role that is unlike them in their everyday life. This explains the character Batman. Specifically, in the Dark Knight trilogy, which was incredibly popular a while back. Bruce Wayne in everyday life does not believe in killing people to bring the “good” back into what is considered an “evil” city (Gotham), however, when he becomes Batman, he began to exhibit what can be seen as evil behaviour and even killed people. This goes against his personal philosophy of not killing others, as he adopted a new role and was not actually Bruce Wayne. One example of this in the trilogy (Batman Begins) is when Batman and the antagonist, Ra’s al Ghul, get into a fight on a train while Batman tries to save Gotham City. He instructed someone else to derail the train, and purposely left his enemy aboard, with full knowledge that he would not live. Ordinarily, Bruce Wayne would not exhibit this behaviour and he would have saved this man in everyday life, but due to him being in a different role, he exhibited different behaviour. This relates to Zimbardo’s experiment as this good person was put in an evil situation, and it was seen that people would do what their role dictated, as Batman did.

Another example of identity roles transforming one’s personality is in gangs, especially when it comes to executing violent behaviour. Martin et al. (2017) performed research in Madrid on gang members and how their violent identity evolved due to being a part of this group. It was revealed that those who have less opportunities due to a lack of education, money or stable family life were more likely to become apart of violent gangs. These people viewed their peers as the most highly valued aspect of education, where many of them engage in the same violent behaviours (Martin et al., 2017). Further, these individuals relate their identities to the gangs they belong in, merging the two. This demonstrates that individuals who engage in violent behaviour look to their group for acceptance and acknowledgements in these acts, and this can change one’s personality.

Overall, it is shown that one’s personality can drastically change when they are given a new identity or way of life. This goes back to Zimbardo’s idea of putting good people in evil situations to see what they do, and no matter how good people perceive themselves to be, evil situations can win out. What do you think? Do you think the idea of roles is a good enough reason to explain why people do evil things?

References:

Isaac, C. (2016). 15 Times Batman Has Killed People. Screenrant. Retrieved from https://screenrant.com/times-batman-has-killed-people/

Martín, M.-J., Martínez, J.-M., García-Sánchez, R., Aramayona, B., Almendros, C., & Jiménez, C. (2017). Young people belonging to violent groups in the Region of Madrid. Psychosocial process model on the onset and evolution of violent identity behavior. Annals of Psychology , 33 (1), 120–132. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/10.6018/analesps.33.1.228541

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil.  New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Something that stood out for me in the readings this week was the discussion about serial killers. For many people, they see serial killers as extremely evil, and this is also portrayed in many television shows and movies within the past decades. The impulses one feels to be angry can be resisted which is why there are serial killers (Baumeister, 1999), as these individuals do not just go out on a killing spree but kill for their own means as their victims have something in common, as part of the definition. This definition is as followed: “A person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behaviour pattern.” (Oxford Dictionary, 2020). Serial killers initially came out of ordinary people committing these acts in films, such as Alfred Hitchcock’s Pyscho (Baumeister, 1999). Before this, killers were thought of as monsters such as werewolves or vampires. Further, these individuals get away with the act initially which allows them to escalate the situation, and be able to discover further pleasure in this (Baumeister, 1999). I thought this was especially interesting as this is still shown in television shows and films to this day, and if this could be what provokes other people, why do we watch these things to the extent we do????

One of the most instrumental serial killers that has been seen in more detail as of lately is Ted Bundy. Ted is one of America’s most well-known and prolific serial killers as he killed at least 30 women, and possibly more, during the 1970’s in a horrific manner. There recently have been a documentary series “Conversations with a Killer” as well as a movie “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile” about his life and killings, that debuted on Netflix. Now, I will admit to watching both of these but it got me thinking about some things. He got away with this for such a long time and seemed to enjoy it, which could provoke others to do the same as they watched this carry out for so many years. Having these acts documented and seemingly glorified may add to individual’s abilities to commit similar acts as they saw a type of fame that came out of this and saw that they may be able to get pleasure and recognition. This comes back to the ideas in Baumeister (1999) book on how ordinary people in movies committed these acts and it allowed people to think they could do the same.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ted+bundy+conversations+with+a+killer&sxsrf=ACYBGNTqFHWutkvAuWvqy2sjPk6tGBZDBA:1581097257930&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj056ej_r_nAhUYH80KHcO0CvMQ_AUoAXoECBYQAw&biw=1152&bih=631

Further, the way the media portrays serial killers around the world have differing effects. Wiest (2016) stated that many serial killers are portrayed in the media as either a monster, with animal characteristics or a type of celebrity, where in the last few decades people see serial killers such as Ted Bundy as charming and handsome. This study compared UK’s view of serial killer and America’s, and found that the United States put more concentration on the serial killer instead of the victim (Wiest, 2016). This could contribute to other’s seeing the fame they could achieve and choosing to act this way as well. The United States also sometimes directly mentions the celebrity status of these individuals and mentions records they hold, such as killing the largest amount of people. The UK also reports on a majority of the serial killers in America. Due to the large numbers of serial killers that come out of America, could it have something to do with how sensationalized they are?? I think so, as they are treated like celebrities and given an extensive amount of recognition for their acts, as Ted Bundy experienced.

Overall, I see the fact that serial killers have been dramatized and sensationalized as a large problem, and this directly related to Baumeister (1999) statement on the coming out of ordinary people committing these acts in film. With us constantly watching movies and documentaries on this, does this encourage the celebrity status serial killers experience?? Something to think about!

References:

Baumeister, R. (1997). Evil: Inside human cruelty and violence. New York, NY: W.H. Freemand and Company.

Wiest, J. (2016). Casting Cultural Monsters: Representations of Serial Killers in U.S. and U.K. News Media, Howard Journal of Communications, 27:4, 327-346, DOI: 10.1080/10646175.2016.1202876

What makes someone violent? What changes between men and women to make one conduct these acts on a more prevalent basis?

To answer these questions, Baumeister (1997) discusses self-esteem in regards to who commits violent acts. More specifically, he discovered that revenge occurs due to threats to an individual’s self-esteem, and that there is a link between egotism and revenge. Therefore, threats to self-esteem are the main category in which someone commits acts of revenge (Baumeister, 1997). Researchers have hypothesized, however, that low self-esteem is what causes violent acts. I can understand this, and do believe that although some people act out of low self-esteem, the majority commit violence due to threats to their high self-esteem, AKA psychopaths. As well, men are more violent (90% of violent crimes) than women and this can come back to the ideas of men having higher self-esteem than women. What do you guys think? Do you think that is why men commit more violent acts than women?

A specific example jumped into my mind when discussing the threats to ego between men and women, and the difference in violence between the two genders. This example is well-known in Canada, as Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. It also provides insight into the ways the two genders may be similar when it comes to violence. Homolka represents the rare 10% of violent crimes committed by females and I thought this was an interesting point to touch on. Bernardo was seen to be a sadist, and this was only intensified by his relationship with Homolka, who encouraged this and shared in his fantasies (Dimuro, 2020). To go back to a topic discussed in the beginning of the course, people can be products of their environment which could be seen in Bernardo, whose father was charged with child molestation, and he was also a child of an affair between his mother and another man (Dimuro, 2020). I think this is a big factor in what made Bernardo so severely disturbed, and is something that is important to understand when looking at evil. Another point that was brought up in class was sadomasochism as a means to pleasure, which is something this couple performed, which I thought was interesting. When Bernardo sexually assaulted Homolka’s sister, she encouraged it as she knew about his previous assaults and ended up aiding in killing her (Dimuro, 2020). They ended up killing and sexually assaulting other girls as well. In the end when they were caught and she had left him he physically abused her, she sought a plea bargain and it worked to her advantage even after videotapes of her enjoying this spree were found. How do you think they differ in their acts of violence, if at all? I personally see them equally as violent since they committed terrible acts, as I do not see gender playing a role in this example. How do you think threats to their ego came into play? I see this as Bernardo having a hard upbringing and potentially lashing out at other women for his mother’s actions as a way to keep his ego high while Homolka seemed to always have high self-esteem.

Gender differences can account for the amount of psychopathic traits an individual experiences. de Vogel & Lancel (2016) studied an equal amount (197) of men and women at forensic psychiatric hospitals in the Netherlands who were admitted between 1984-2013. They separated the participants into 4 groups, women with and without psychopathy and men with and without psychopathy. It was discovered that both women and men who experience psychopathy had similar personal backgrounds as well as criminal histories. Women were found, however, to offend more out of frustration, were diagnosed more often with Borderline Personality Disorder and be more manipulative, while men were found to be more physically aggressive and obtain higher psychopathic tendency scores on the PCL scale (de Vogel & Lancel, 2016). This is important as men are more likely to demonstrate straightforward psychopathic traits as well as be more physical in their violence, while women are more manipulative, which demonstrates two different kinds of evil and can relate back to self-esteem. The physical aggression piece could demonstrate the ability to achieve high self-esteem and not to be thwarted by ego threats, while women are more likely to suffer from low self-esteem which could be why they choose to demonstrate more cunning tactics.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the topic of gender differences when it comes to violence and ego threats! Let me know what you guys think!

Empathy is a large piece of what is discussed when talking about the concept of evil. In class, we spoke about 3 different domains; eye of the beholder, the individual and societal aspects. Empathy was discussed for all of these domains, as it is the piece that ties all three together. I think this the most important aspect as for the eye of the beholder, they need to have empathy for the victim, the perpetrator or both. For the individual committing the act, empathy needs to be turned off or not be there in the first place and in certain societal aspects, empathy also needs to be turned off in order to commit the evil actions, such as exclusion of out groups or war crimes. This idea of empathy, or lack thereof, was the main topic in the readings this week, which is why it is important to discuss.

A lack of empathy can be either cognitive or affective. Cognitive empathy refers to the ability to be able to understand others thoughts while affective empathy is the ability to understand others emotions (Baron-Cohen, 2011). This is important to distinguish in the ideas of positive and negative degrees of empathy; positive such as Autism and negative such as psychopathy. Both have a lack of empathy as a defining feature, while those with 0 degrees positive can still systemize and their affective empathy can be intact, which means they can still recognize someone’s feelings without being able to understand them (Baron-Cohen, 2011). Lastly, as discussed in class, a lack of empathy is necessary to commit these acts of evil, but is not sufficient, which is why individuals who have Autism are not more likely to commit evil acts (Baron-Cohen, 2011). This is important to realize when discussing a lack of empathy in regards to evil, and moving forward should be kept in the back of our minds!

The people we are most accustomed to in the media are those who experience a complete lack of empathy, both cognitively and affectively, as they are the most likely to commit acts in which hurt those around them. More specifically, Baron-Cohen (2011), found that most psychopaths lack affective empathy but their cognitive empathy is still intact. These individuals were discussed in class to have a lack of remorse, to do it for their own benefit and have no real rationale or reason. With these characteristics in mind, Chris Watts who killed his pregnant wife and 2 daughters, can be hypothesized to have psychopathy. Psychopaths were defined by Baron-Cohen (2011) as being selfish, doing whatever it takes to satisfy their own desire and have a complete disregard for others. Chris had an affair with another woman, and when he was caught, his wife threatened to leave him and take their children. He stated after he killed her that he felt as though something was implanted in his mind, and he had no control over it. He then killed his 2 daughters when they asked questions about what had happened to their mother (Shapiro, 2019). In order to kill your wife who is pregnant with your children, as well as your 2 young daughters, I believe that an individual cannot experience any empathy, as well as has the qualities of a psychopath laid out by Baron-Cohen. He then proceeded to lie and say that his family had left him, as well as leave out clues to make it look this way such as his wife’s wedding ring (Shapiro, 2019). The only part of this that seems to bother him is the fact that his daughters last words were “Daddy no!”. Even though this does haunt him, he does not appear to express the empathy needed to understand how this act hurt all of those around him. Overall, I think this example demonstrates his lack of empathy towards his own family, as well as a disregard for others such as his family left behind, ex. her parents and his parents. This shows that a lack of empathy is crucial for those who commit evil acts.

Verschuere (2018) discusses the central features of psychopathy, which relates directly to the readings, media article and discussion for this week. I think this is important to focus on as psychopathy and specifically a lack of empathy have been themes this week. This research article studied offenders in prison, by conducting a scale called the PCL-R which has operationalized psychopathy (Verschuere, 2018). A lack of empathy was discovered to be a core feature of psychopathy, specifically a lack of affective empathy. It is also the trait used most often in describing youth psychopathy (Verschuere, 2018), which is important in the study of these individuals. This study demonstrates how a lack of empathy has, and continues to be a defining feature in psychopathy, and these individuals are most likely to commit these evil acts.

Due to empathy being such a defining feature in individuals, society and the eye of the beholder, it is crucial to understand how a lack of this trait negatively impacts these individuals. As was mentioned, a lack of empathy does not mean one will commit these evil acts but it is needed in order to. This topic will continue to come back as the semester continues and is important to remember.

References:

Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Shapiro, E. (2019, March 7). Chris Watts’ daughter’s heartbreaking last words before he killed her: ‘Daddy, no!’. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/chilling-confession-chris-watts-told-police-killed-pregnant/story?id=61477303

Verschuere, B., van Ghesel Grothe, S., Waldorp, L., Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Edens, J. F., . . . Noordhof, A. (2018). What features of psychopathy might be central? A network analysis of the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R) in three large samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(1), 51-65. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/10.1037/abn0000315