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 (AU)
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 (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Psychology, Social/methods , Psychology, Social/statistics & numerical data , Aggression/physiology , Aggression/psychology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Psychology, Social/organization & administration , Psychology, Social/standards , Psychology, Social/trends , Aggression/classification , Vandalism , Logistic ModelsABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Aggression/psychology , Antisocial Personality Disorder/psychology , Crime Victims/psychology , Intention , Public Opinion , Violence/psychology , Adolescent , Antisocial Personality Disorder/diagnosis , Female , Homicide/psychology , Humans , Male , Morals , Rape/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Terrorism/psychology , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study reported the outcome evaluation of the "Apoyo Personal y Familiar" (APF) program for poorly-educated mothers from multi-problem families, showing inadequate behavior with their children. APF is a community-based multi-site program delivered through weekly group meetings in municipal resource centers. METHOD: A total of 340 mothers referred by the municipal social services of Tenerife, Spain were assessed; 185 mothers participated in the APF program that lasted 8 months, and 155 mothers were in the control group. Pre-post test comparisons for the intervention group and post-test comparisons with the control group on self-rating measures of maternal beliefs, personal agency and child-rearing practices were performed. Multivariate tests, t tests and effect sizes (ES) were calculated to determine the program effectiveness on the outcome measures. RESULTS: Mothers' support of nurturist and nativist beliefs and the reported use of Neglect-permissive and Coercive practices significantly decreased after program completion whereas the reported use of Inductive practices significantly increased. Increases in self-efficacy, internal control and role difficulty were also significant in relation to those of the control group. The program was especially effective for older mothers, with fewer children, living in a two-parent family, in urban areas and with either low or medium educational levels. CONCLUSION: The program was very effective in changing the mothers' perceived competences and modestly effective in changing their beliefs about child development and education and reported child-rearing practices. Changes in personal agency are very important for at-risk parents who feel helpless and with no control over their lives.
