Perceiving Pure Evil: The Influence of Cognitive Load and Prototypical Evilness on Demonizing

Abstract

The present research sought to investigate the psychological dynamics underlying demonizing, that is, the tendency to see others as personifications of pure evilness. Building on an integrative theoretical framework, it is hypothesized that the extent to which a perpetrator matches prototypical expectations of evilness shapes demonizing responses to offenders particularly when cognitive resources are impaired. In two experiments, participants were asked to memorize either a difficult or an easy telephone number (cognitive load vs. control), and were then asked to evaluate a perpetrator who murdered a young woman (Experiment 1) or who kidnapped a child (Experiment 2). Results revealed that the extent to which the description of the perpetrator was consistent with a prototypical evilness scheme influenced demonizing particularly under conditions of cognitive load. It is concluded that impairment of cognitive resources increases the influence of prototypical evilness on demonizing.Keywords Demonizing Á Injustice Á Prototypical evilness Á Cognitive load People are capable of doing horrendous things. Frequent incidents occur in our world where a perpetrator kills, tortures, rapes, or kidnaps a fellow human being. Through modern media, lay people are often confronted with descriptions or pictures of perpetrators who committed such severe injustices. One way to make sense of these perpetrators is to demonize them, that is, to form impressions of them as

Reactions to offenders: Psychological differences between beliefs versus punishment

“…We used the 5‐item demonization scale by Van Prooijen and Van de Veer () for the assessment of demonization of the offender. We adjusted the scale to the specifics of this study (e.g., ‘this act was caused entirely by the entrepreneur's evilness’, ‘the entrepreneur seems to enjoy committing fraudulent behaviors’; α = .85).…”

The impact of choice on retributive reactions: How observers’ autonomy concerns shape responses to criminal offenders

“…Third, we investigated whether we could find evidence for our hypothesis on other types of retributive reactions. Whereas Experiment 1 focused on the affective component of the retributive process, in Experiment 2 we investigated whether the hypothesis could be corroborated on both the perceptual component of the retributive process (i.e., demonizing; Baumeister, 1997; Ellard et al ., 2002; Van Prooijen & Van de Veer, 2010) as well as on the behavioural intentions that are associated with the retributive process (i.e., punishment recommendations; Carlsmith, 2006; Feather, 1998; Fehr & Gächter, 2002; Kerr, Hymes, Anderson, & Weathers, 1995; Van Prooijen, 2006; Van Prooijen & Lam, 2007).…”

“…In the scenario, participants read how the offender was eventually caught and the laptop retrieved. To assess the extent to which participants demonized the perpetrator, we assessed various features of demonized perceptions, such as perceived evilness (Van Prooijen & Van de Veer, 2010), greed, and the extent to which the offender is perceived to have a history of immoral behaviour (Berkowitz, 1999). Participants responded to the following eight questions (1 = not at all, 7 = very much): 'Do you think that the offender is an evil person?…”

“…In the scenario, participants read how the offender was eventually caught and the laptop retrieved. To assess the extent to which participants demonized the perpetrator, we assessed various features of demonized perceptions, such as perceived evilness (Van Prooijen & Van de Veer, 2010), greed, and the extent to which the offender is perceived to have a history of immoral behaviour (Berkowitz, 1999). Participants responded to the following eight questions (1 = not at all , 7 = very much ): ‘Do you think that the offender is an evil person?’; ‘Do you expect that greed motivated the offender's behaviour?’; ‘To what extent do you condemn the offender's behaviour?’; ‘Do you believe that the offender committed theft before?’; ‘Do you believe that, on previous occasions, the offender committed different crimes besides theft?’; ‘Do you believe that the offender was looking for valuable equipment in VU University's cafeteria?’; ‘Do you believe that the offender has a selfish character?’; and ‘Do you believe that the offender will steal again in the future?’.…”

“…Batson, Chao, & Givens, 2009; Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002; Darley, Carlsmith, & Robinson, 2000; Goldberg, Lerner, & Tetlock, 1999). Perceptually, it has been noted that observers have a tendency to demonize criminal offenders, that is, to perceive them as personifications of pure evilness, with a history of immoral or illegal behaviour (Baumeister, 1997; Berkowitz, 1999; Ellard, Miller, Baumle, & Olson, 2002; Van Prooijen & Van de Veer, 2010). Behaviourally, people tend to desire that the offender is accorded appropriate punishment (Carlsmith & Darley, 2008; Darley, 2002; Darley & Pittman, 2003; Fehr & Gächter, 2002; Miller & Vidmar, 1981; Van Prooijen, Gallucci, & Toeset, 2008; Van Prooijen & Lam, 2007).…”