Jan 24, 2018 sample paper 2

What is this question intended to address?

This paper concentrates on the primary theme of What is this question intended to address? in which you have to explain and evaluate its intricate aspects in detail. In addition to this, this paper has been reviewed and purchased by most of the students hence; it has been rated 4.8 points on the scale of 5 points. Besides, the price of this paper starts from £ 45. For more details and full access to the paper, please refer to the site.

Assignment 2: LASA # 1: Literature Review Paper

The purpose of this assignment is to provide you with the opportunity to select a topic in the particular area in which you have an occupational or research interest, and to complete a literature review of the topic, using a minimum of ten scholarly references. This will allow you to demonstrate mastery of the program outcomes for the B.A. psychology program at Argosy University. A helpful Web site for organizing and writing a literature review is.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/ReviewofLiterature.html”>www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/ReviewofLiterature.html.

You may also want to review the following documents that are available in the Doc Sharing area of the course:

  • A sample literature review,
  • a PowerPoint document illustrating how to set up your word processor for APA style
  • a “Guide for Writing a Literature Review”

Based on your review of the most recent, relevant research findings on your chosen topic, submit a final version of your literature review paper, integrating feedback received from your instructor. Be sure to include a research/focal question, synthesis of the literature you reviewed, well-established conclusions, and points of discussion and/or future research.

  • Begin the review by defining the objective of the paper. Introduce the reader to your focal question. What is this question intended to address? You may state your “question” in the form of a problem if you like. Describe the topic for your literature review and why you chose this topic. Explain why you think it is important. It is also useful to tell the reader how the review is organized in your introduction section, before you the transition into the body of the review.
  • Organize your literature review paper by themes/theories/concepts, rather than article by article. If there is one major theme you want to highlight, state the theme. If there are three major themes or streams of thought on the topic, briefly name them—and then organize the balance of your literature review around those three streams. Think of themes, theories, concepts, lines of thought, and ideas as organizing strategies for your literature review. Your creativity in this assignment is not the content or findings but the clarity with which you organize the review and create a context for understanding the focal question.
  • When you are done introducing the first line of thought, create a new paragraph to discuss studies which present another line of thought or opposing view.
  • Your literature review should hit the high points of each article. You should not discuss a single article, one by one, like a grocery list. Zero in on the main theme or finding and then move on to the next theme. Remember, this is a synthesis, an integration of all the things you have learned. You are creating a discussion on paper, which in turn gives the reader a context for understanding where the scholarship has been, where it is currently, and where it likely will be heading next. Provide enough details to help the reader understand the significance of the studies you cite without “rebuilding Rome.” Be sure to evaluate the studies and offer critical comments on any shortcomings you’ve observed or that have been reported by the authors.
  • Discuss the main findings and their implications. Given the results of your literature review, what is/are the prevailing argument(s)? What research question could you ask in order to further develop this area of study and contribute to the existing body of knowledge? Complete your review by drawing conclusions about your body of research and identifying gaps in the research which still remain to be explored, maybe even by you! Make an argument as to why your research question is important and relevant to the current work being done on your topic.


Apply current APA standards for editorial style, expression of ideas, and formatting of the text, headings, citations, and references. Remember to use your own words to describe and evaluate the articles. Avoid quoting the material and also cite works when you are discussing someone else’s ideas. Your paper should be double-spaced and in 12 point, Times New Roman font with normal one-inch margins, written in APA style, and free of typographical and grammatical errors. It should include a title page with a running head, an abstract and a reference page. The body of the paper should be no less than 5–6 pages in length.

Alisebeth Nelson

Argosy University Twin Cities

Advanced General Psychology


Review Paper – Draft of Literature Findings


June 2016


This paper
discusses the similarities, differences, and content of 10 articles and other
resources the report and discuss the findings of research that has been done on
the Psychology of Evil. The idea of a person being completely “evil” is still a
new idea in psychology and all of the main research on this has been done
within the past 70 years, so as of right now there is now hard proof that
someone can really truly be “evil.” Most of the research done has been done
based on the idea of an authority figure being the main reason why someone may
do an evil task, not one on single person doing an evil thing on their own
recognizance. This paper focuses on experiments performed by Milgram and
Zimbardo and their findings, but also includes discussions from other sources.

The Psychology of Evil

There have been many discussions
based on the research done to prove that humans can be and are instinctively
evil beings. However, most of the research that has been presented to us has
been performed with some type of authority that wills the participants to
perform the “evil” acts. Becker states in his article “little effort has been
made in psychology and psychiatry to study pathologies that afflict, not the
aberrant neurotic or psychotic individual or social group, but the greater
population of the psychologically normal” (2008). I would have to say that
based on my schooling and the personal research that I have done that I would
agree with this statement. All too often, any research performed to test the psychology
behind good and evil only includes what we would call a “normal” individual;
someone who has no type of psychotic diagnosis. Now if these experiments were
tested on individual who was diagnosed with Antisocial or Borderline
Personality Disorder, would the outcomes have been different? Becker states in
this article that he believes that to be so. In this article he mainly focuses
on Nazi leaders during the holocaust.

Chirico writes an article that is 22
chapters long that is divided in 5 sections to study this concept: “Basic
issues and Controversies,” “Motivation and Cognitive Processes,”
“Developmental, Personality and Clinical Aspects,” “Good and Evil,” and
“Synthesis” (2011). Chirico starts his analysis with the main question that so
many of us ask; “Why is there evil?” Chirico studies focus mainly on whether or
not evil is a normal human condition or simply a side effect of mental illness.
He also looks into the schemas of cognitions and morality.

Kadar’s article discusses a very
interesting theory that the central goal of ecological psychology is for humans
to create coping mechanisms to deal with everyday tasks, and sometime that
these coping mechanisms can include evil behaviors. He states that sometimes an
evil act is not necessarily deeply rooted in evil or abnormal behavior but
simply used as a means to an end (2006). My main internal thought I had while
researching this article was that this could be used as an explanation for
those with Personality Disorders or Sociopathic tendencies. Their general lack
of empathy for others could explain their sometimes evil acts. It is not
necessarily that they want to do evil things, but primarily that they just
don’t care as long it is helps them in the long run.

Javaid approaches the concept of evil
from a sociological perspective. He states that an evil act is fluid and
changes from society to society, group to group, and sometimes even person to
person. For example, some remote tribes in third world countries still believe
in animal and sometimes human sacrifice. Here in America that would be
considered murder or inhumane treatment of an animal, but does that make it
evil? Javaid believes that the concept of evil is all about your perspective on
the subject.

De Vos’s article goes over evidence
of both Milgram’s experiment and The Stanford Prison Experiment. He states that
both of these experiments launched a new age of psychology, experiments, and
the understanding of human behaviors. He goes on to say that these experiments
can be looked at as “twin experiments.” He explains this by saying that
Milgram’s paradigm of a psychology which explicitly draws its subject into the
frame of it’s own discourse can be said to be the precondition of Zimbardo’s
claim that his experiment offers a window onto the crucible of human behavior
(De Vos, 2010). De Vos later relates both experiments to how prisoners are
treated in places such as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and that psychology is
fundamentally based on a process of psychologization that turns its subjects
into homo sacer of psychological discourse.

I found Himma’s article and argument
to be extremely interesting. I myself was raised in a Catholic household and
was taught from a young age that there is no real thing as mental illness and
that everything good and bad in this world is based on the free will we were
given by God. I liked the idea of throwing this article in to get a completely
different perspective on the science behind good and evil, or in this case the lack
of science behind it. Himma uses the Free-Will Argument (FWA); the existence of
free beings in the world who as a whole do more good than evil. The argument
here is that a great moral good cannot be achieved without some kind of evil to
relate it to, therefore, some type of evil has to exist to give us a frame of
reference (Himma, 2010). The main
weakness I found in this article was the lack of sociological and psychological
backup for some of the evidence. Although most of the research he presents is from
studying Christian views and religious leaders, which most would argue that has
a complete lack of scientific evidence behind it anyway.

Deavel studies philosophers for the
notion of evil for this article and states that the idea of good and evil are
relational and are a necessary element for the greater good and that to truly
understand the idea of good an evil, one must reject the idea of an omnipotent
God or admit that an omnipotent God can be responsible for the evil in the
world. The main argument of the article is that philosophy does not account for
the idea that evil is a negation and that there lacks a distinction between
moral and physical evil.


I found a lot of good information with
many good arguments and great research, but the main weakness I found in most
of the articles is that although there was a lot of scientific research
presented, most of the research in interpretation was opinion based. Although I
am finding throughout my studies that a lot of psychological based studies are
theory and opinion based. Albeit that the majority of the arguments I found
were based on opinion, one of the main strengths I found and enjoyed was that
they were all very strong arguments. I found myself reading one article and
nodding and agreeing with what the author was stating and then reading the next
article with a different point of view and then nodding and agreeing with that
one while reading it.

Although the articles all presented
a different kind of evidence supporting their claim they were all easy to read
and switch back and forth too. It was almost like reading a transcript of a
debate. Almost every article that I found presented a different form of
research, a different opinion and different findings. So in a way, yes the
articles did speak to each other, but in an even greater way they did not.

So far the evidence for this topic
tells us that yes indeed there is good and evil in the world but as far as
having one conclusive answer as to why; there isn’t one. My personal belief is
that any one single person is capable of evil, whether there be a mental
illness or not, it is the situation that drives us to perform an act of evil.
Someone otherwise incapable of murder may take the life of another if meant
saving a loved one. While on the other end of the spectrum you have someone
like Jeffrey Dahmer, who was mentally ill and committed murder because it
pleased him to do so. So I guess in a way you could say that I agree with the
argument that evil is relative to the individual and the society.

I think it would be difficult to
refine my research topic down even further because the science and the
psychology of evil is still a relatively new subject of discussion in the world
of psychology and will be a subject of debate for many years to come.


Bartlett, S. J.
KOESTLER. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 48(3), 340.
Retrieved from https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/222471962?accountid=34899

Chirico, D. (2012, April 01). The
Social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Choice
Reviews Online,
 49(08), 1539. doi:10.5860/choice.49-4763

Deavel, C. J. (2007).
Relational evil, relational good: Thomas aquinas and process thought.International
Philosophical Quarterly, 47
(3), 297. Retrieved from

De Vos, J. (2010).
From milgram to zimbardo: The double birth of postwar psychology/
psychologization. History of the Human Sciences, 23(5), 156.
Retrieved from.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/819727822?accountid=34899″>https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/819727822?accountid=34899

HIMMA, K. E. (2010).
Plantinga’s version of the free-will argument: The good and evil that free
beings do. Religious Studies, 46(1), 21-39.

Javaid, A. (2015). The
sociology and social science of ‘evil’: Is the conception of pedophilia ‘evil’?Philosophical
Papers and Review, 6
(1), 1-9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/PPR2014.0112

Kadar, E. E., &
Effken, J. A. (2006). Beyond good and evil: Prelude to a science of the future. Ecological
Psychology, 18
(4), 319-363.

Shermer, M. (2006).
The science of good and evil: Why people cheat, gossip, care, share, and follow
the golden rule. College Quarterly, 9(3), 175. Retrieved from.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/229297750?accountid=34899″>https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/229297750?accountid=34899

0% Plagiarism Guaranteed & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions

International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom,
E16 2DQ

UK Registered Company # 11483120

100% Pass Guarantee

Order Now


We've produced some samples of what you can expect from our Academic Writing Service - these are created by our writers to show you the kind of high-quality work you'll receive. Take a look for yourself!

View Our Samples

corona virus stop
FLAT 25% OFF ON EVERY ORDER.Use "FLAT25" as your promo code during checkout