DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolution and Psychology of Self-Deception

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolution and Psychology of Self-Deception BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2011) 34,1–56 doi:10.1017/S0140525X10001354 The evolution and psychology of self-deception William von Hippel School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia [email protected] http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/index.html?id¼1159 Robert Trivers Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 [email protected] http://anthro.rutgers.edu/ index.php?option¼com_content&task¼view&id¼102&Itemid¼136 Abstract: In this article we argue that self-deception evolved to facilitate interpersonal deception by allowing people to avoid the cues to conscious deception that might reveal deceptive intent. Self-deception has two additional advantages: It eliminates the costly cognitive load that is typically associated with deceiving, and it can minimize retribution if the deception is discovered. Beyond its role in specific acts of deception, self-deceptive self-enhancement also allows people to display more confidence than is warranted, which has a host of social advantages. The question then arises of how the self can be both deceiver and deceived. We propose that this is achieved through dissociations of mental processes, including conscious versus unconscious memories, conscious versus unconscious attitudes, and automatic versus controlled processes. Given the variety of methods for deceiving others, it should come as no surprise that self-deception manifests itself in a number of different psychological processes, and we discuss various types of self-deception. We then discuss the interpersonal versus intrapersonal nature of self-deception before considering the levels of consciousness at which the self can be deceived. Finally, we contrast our evolutionary approach to self-deception with current theories and debates in psychology and consider some of the costs associated with self-deception. Keywords: deception; evolutionary psychology; motivated cognition; self-deception; social psychology Why would people deceive themselves? What is the mental others, they can also be useful in deceiving the self. architecture that enables the same person to be both decei- For example, if I can deceive you by avoiding a critical ver and deceived? How does self-deception manifest itself piece of information, then it stands to reason that I can psychologically? And how do these three questions interre- deceive myself in the same manner. Thus, we consider late? In this article we address these issues with an evol- various types of self-deception, including biased infor- utionary account of self-deception, according to which mation search strategies, biased interpretive processes, self-deception evolved to facilitate deception of others. and biased memory processes. What marks all of these var- First, we define what we mean by self-deception and ieties of self-deception is that people favor welcome over describe how self-deception serves the goal of interpersonal unwelcome information in a manner that reflects their deception. We then discuss the non-unitary nature of the goals or motivations (in this sense, our approach to self- mind and how different types of psychological dualism deception is consistent with Kunda 1990; Mele 1997; enable the same person to be both deceiver and deceived. Pyszczynski & Greenberg 1987). We also consider classic Next we describe different varieties of self-deception cases of self-deception such as rationalization and convin- and the evidence for these different varieties. We then cing the self that a lie is true. discuss the interpersonal versus intrapersonal nature of self-deception before considering the levels of conscious- ness at which the self can be deceived. Finally, we contrast our evolutionary approach to self-deception with current WILLIAM VON HIPPEL, professor of psychology at the theories and debates in psychology. University of Queensland, Australia, conducts research in social cognition and evolutionary psychology. 1. Deception and self-deception ROBERT TRIVERS, professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, is best known for his theories of reciprocal There are many ways to deceive other people. An obvious altruism, parental investment and sexual selection, par- ental control of offspring sex ratio, and parent–offspring choice is to tell an outright lie, but it is also possible to conflict. Trivers is recipient of the Crafoord Prize for deceive others by avoiding the truth, obfuscating the “his fundamental analysis of social evolution, conflict truth, exaggerating the truth, or casting doubt on the and cooperation.” truth. Just as these processes are useful in deceiving # Cambridge University Press 2011 0140-525X/11 $40.00 1 von Hippel & Trivers: The evolution and psychology of self-deception Our approach consists of treating self-deception as a biases can reflect cognitive shortcuts, errors, and differen- variety of different processes that are directly comparable tial weighting of prior and new information that have to those involved in interpersonal deception. This nothing to do with motivational concerns (e.g., Chambers approach has the advantage of tying self-deception to pro- & Windschitl 2004). From our perspective, biases in infor- cesses that have been studied in interpersonal deception. mation processing can be considered self-deceptive only But it has the disadvantage that some behaviors are ambig- when they favor welcome over unwelcome information uous concerning whether they should be classified as self- in a manner that reflects the individual’s goals. For deception. This sort of ambiguity arises to the same degree, example, if bolstering a person’s self-image makes that however, in the study of interpersonal deception. For individual more willing to search out negative information example, consider a man who has returned home late about himself (Trope & Neter 1994), we have some evi- from work because he stopped to talk to a female colleague dence that prior avoidance of negative information about and who is confronted by his wife, who wants to know why the self was motivated and self-deceptive. Similarly, if he is late. If he responds by claiming his boss gave him an people spend more time learning about the negative extra assignment, then he is clearly being deceptive. If he than the positive features of someone else only when responds by saying that he stopped to talk to this female they expect that person will reject them (Wilson et al. colleague, then he is clearly being truthful. But if he 2004), we again have some evidence that focusing on the changes the subject – perhaps by saying that dinner negative aspects of another was motivated and self-decep- smells great – and thereby distracts his wife from her tive. But if biases are impervious to such manipulations or line of inquiry, then it is not clear whether he was deceptive irrelevant to such concerns, then the evidence suggests or simply failed to answer the question. There is no way to that they are not self-deceptive. For example, people know if he is deceiving his wife (by avoiding the truth) often rely on peripheral cues such as source expertise without knowing his intent in changing the subject or when processing arguments about issues that do not without knowing more about the relationships among concern them (Petty & Cacioppo 1986). Such biases do him, his wife, and his colleague. In the same manner, not reflect self-deception, but rather are simply evidence when people avoid unpleasant truths in their own lives, it that these individuals are insufficiently motivated to is often impossible to know if self-deception or some study the arguments carefully and are satisfied to rely on other process is at work without knowing more about a heuristic that experts tend to be correct. We return to their motives or situations. Nevertheless, just as interperso- this issue of differentiating self-deceptive from non-self- nal deception can be studied in the absence of complete deceptive biases in section 5. confidence in all classifications, self-deception can also be studied despite the inevitability of such ambiguous cases. Our approach of treating self-deception as information- 2. Self-deception in the co-evolutionary struggle processing biases that give priority to welcome over unwel- between deceiver and deceived come information also differs from classic accounts that hold that the self-deceiving individual must have two sep- If (as Dawkins argues) deceit is fundamental in animal com- munication, then there must be strong selection to spot decep- arate representations of reality, with truth preferentially tion and this ought, in turn, select for a degree of self- stored in the unconscious mind and falsehood in the con- deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so scious mind (see Gur & Sackeim 1979). As is clear in our as to not betray – by the subtle signs of self-knowledge – the review of information-processing biases in section 5, deception being practiced. Thus, the conventional view that people can deceive themselves by preventing unwanted natural selection favors nervous systems which produce ever information from being encoded in the first place. This more accurate images of the world must be a very naı¨ve view act can be demonstrably motivational, for example, if of mental evolution. (Trivers 1976/2006, p. 20) people stop gathering information when they like the In the struggle to accrue resources, a strategy that has early returns but keep gathering more information when emerged over evolutionary time is deception. For they do not (Ditto & Lopez 1992). The flexible nature of example, people frequently lie to those on whom they this information-gathering bias also reveals that people are dependent to receive resources that might not other- have some awareness that upcoming information may be wise be provided (DePaulo & Kashy 1998; Steinel & De inconsistent with what they have already discovered. Dreu 2004). Indeed, approximately half of people’s daily Thus, biases of this sort are consistent with classic defi- deceptions are intended to gain a resource for the self nitions of self-deception that emphasize simultaneous (DePaulo & Kashy 1998).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Threat Defense: Cyber Deception Approach and Education for Resilience in Hybrid Threats Model
    S S symmetry Article Threat Defense: Cyber Deception Approach and Education for Resilience in Hybrid Threats Model William Steingartner 1,* , Darko Galinec 2 and Andrija Kozina 3 1 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Technical University of Košice, Letná 9, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia 2 Department of Informatics and Computing, Zagreb University of Applied Sciences, Vrbik 8, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] 3 Dr. Franjo Tudman¯ Croatian Defence Academy, 256b Ilica Street, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This paper aims to explore the cyber-deception-based approach and to design a novel conceptual model of hybrid threats that includes deception methods. Security programs primarily focus on prevention-based strategies aimed at stopping attackers from getting into the network. These programs attempt to use hardened perimeters and endpoint defenses by recognizing and blocking malicious activities to detect and stop attackers before they can get in. Most organizations implement such a strategy by fortifying their networks with defense-in-depth through layered prevention controls. Detection controls are usually placed to augment prevention at the perimeter, and not as consistently deployed for in-network threat detection. This architecture leaves detection gaps that are difficult to fill with existing security controls not specifically designed for that role. Rather than using prevention alone, a strategy that attackers have consistently succeeded against, defenders Citation: Steingartner, W.; are adopting a more balanced strategy that includes detection and response. Most organizations Galinec, D.; Kozina, A. Threat Defense: Cyber Deception Approach deploy an intrusion detection system (IDS) or next-generation firewall that picks up known attacks and Education for Resilience in or attempts to pattern match for identification.
    [Show full text]
  • Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins Is Another
    BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT ooks about science tend to fall into two categories: those that explain it to lay people in the hope of cultivat- Bing a wide readership, and those that try to persuade fellow scientists to support a new theory, usually with equations. Books that achieve both — changing science and reach- ing the public — are rare. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) was one. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is another. From the moment of its publication 40 years ago, it has been a sparkling best-seller and a TERRY SMITH/THE LIFE IMAGES COLLECTION/GETTY SMITH/THE LIFE IMAGES TERRY scientific game-changer. The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theoriz- ing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries. A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species — the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960s, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz — but (uncon- sciously) so that its genes go on. Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes. No other explana- tion makes sense, although some insist that there are other ways to tell the story (see K. Laland et al. Nature 514, 161–164; 2014). What stood out was Dawkins’s radical insistence that the digital information in a gene is effectively immortal and must be the primary unit of selection.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sociology of Gaslighting
    ASRXXX10.1177/0003122419874843American Sociological ReviewSweet 874843research-article2019 American Sociological Review 2019, Vol. 84(5) 851 –875 The Sociology of Gaslighting © American Sociological Association 2019 https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843DOI: 10.1177/0003122419874843 journals.sagepub.com/home/asr Paige L. Sweeta Abstract Gaslighting—a type of psychological abuse aimed at making victims seem or feel “crazy,” creating a “surreal” interpersonal environment—has captured public attention. Despite the popularity of the term, sociologists have ignored gaslighting, leaving it to be theorized by psychologists. However, this article argues that gaslighting is primarily a sociological rather than a psychological phenomenon. Gaslighting should be understood as rooted in social inequalities, including gender, and executed in power-laden intimate relationships. The theory developed here argues that gaslighting is consequential when perpetrators mobilize gender- based stereotypes and structural and institutional inequalities against victims to manipulate their realities. Using domestic violence as a strategic case study to identify the mechanisms via which gaslighting operates, I reveal how abusers mobilize gendered stereotypes; structural vulnerabilities related to race, nationality, and sexuality; and institutional inequalities against victims to erode their realities. These tactics are gendered in that they rely on the association of femininity with irrationality. Gaslighting offers an opportunity for sociologists to theorize under-recognized,
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel C. Dennett
    KINDS OF MINDS Toward an Understanding of Consciousness DANIEL C. DENNETT A Member of the Perseus Books Group -iii- The Science Masters Series is a global publishing venture consisting of original science books written by leading scientists and published by a worldwide team of twenty-six publishers assembled by John Brockman. The series was conceived by Anthony Cheetham of Orion Publishers and John Brockman of Brockman Inc., a New York literary agency, and developed in coordination with BasicBooks. The Science Masters name and marks are owned by and licensed to the publisher by Brockman Inc. Copyright © 1996 by Daniel Dennett. Published by BasicBooks A Member of the Perseus Books Group All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information address Basic Books, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-5299. Designed by Joan Greenfield ISBN 0-465-07351-4 (pbk.) 99 00 01 ❖/RRD 10 9 8 7 6 5 -iv- CONTENTS Preface vii 1 What Kinds of Minds Are There? 1 Knowing Your Own Mind 1 We Mind-Havers, We Minders 3 Words and Minds 8 The Problem of Incommunicative Minds 12 2 Intentionality: The Intentional Systems Approach 19 Simple Beginnings: The Birth of Agency 19 Adopting the Intentional Stance 27 The Misguided Goal of Propositional Precision 41 Original and Derived Intentionality 50 3 The Body and Its Minds 57 From Sensitivity to Sentience? 57 The
    [Show full text]
  • Deflection, Denial and Disbelief: Social and Political Discourses About Child Sexual Abuse and Their Influence on Institutional Responses a Rapid Evidence Assessment
    Deflection, denial and disbelief: social and political discourses about child sexual abuse and their influence on institutional responses A rapid evidence assessment Jo Lovett, Maddy Coy and Liz Kelly Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit London Metropolitan University February 2018 Deflection, denial and disbelief: social and political discourses about child sexual abuse and their influence on institutional responses A rapid evidence assessment This report is authored by Jo Lovett, Maddy Coy and Liz Kelly Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit London Metropolitan University February 2018 Disclaimer This is a Rapid Evidence Assessment prepared at IICSA’s request. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone. Due to the nature of the research report, the authors have worked with the predominant ideas on child sexual abuse and use the language in which those ideas were commonly expressed over the period from the 1940s to 2017. The use of language that encapsulates these ideas and meanings should not be read as an endorsement of any of the identified discourses. © Crown copyright 2018. This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/opengovernment-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.iicsa.org.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Deflection, denial and disbelief: social and political discourses about child sexual abuse and their influence on 3 institutional responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Cues to Deception
    Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 129, No. 1, 74–118 0033-2909/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 Cues to Deception Bella M. DePaulo James J. Lindsay University of Virginia University of Missouri—Columbia Brian E. Malone Laura Muhlenbruck, Kelly Charlton, and University of Virginia Harris Cooper University of Missouri—Columbia Do people behave differently when they are lying compared with when they are telling the truth? The combined results of 1,338 estimates of 158 cues to deception are reported. Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales. They also make a more negative impression and are more tense. Their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents. However, many behaviors showed no discernible links, or only weak links, to deceit. Cues to deception were more pronounced when people were motivated to succeed, especially when the motivations were identity relevant rather than monetary or material. Cues to deception were also stronger when lies were about transgressions. Do people behave in discernibly different ways when they are Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1986; Zuckerman & Driver, lying compared with when they are telling the truth? Practitioners 1985), but the number of additional estimates was small. Other and laypersons have been interested in this question for centuries reviews have been more comprehensive but not quantitative (see (Trovillo, 1939). The scientific search for behavioral cues to Vrij, 2000, for the most recent of these). In the present review, we deception is also longstanding and has become especially vigorous summarize quantitatively the results of more than 1,300 estimates in the past few decades.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-2173 LANETTE HOLMSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:07-cv-06044—Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 2010—DECIDED AUGUST 4, 2010 Before KANNE, WOOD, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This case illustrates the dif- ficult problems presented by claims for disability insur- ance by people with serious and painful conditions that do not have objectively measurable symptoms. Plain- tiff Lanette Holmstrom worked as a senior training specialist at a large credit management company. She participated in an employee welfare benefit plan admin- istered by defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Com- 2 No. 09-2173 pany (“MetLife”). Holmstrom stopped working in Janu- ary 2000 when she developed a painful nerve condition in her right arm. MetLife began paying disability benefits under an “own-occupation” standard. Three surgeries failed to remedy the condition, and Holmstrom was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome (“CRPS”). After Holmstrom’s “own-occupation” benefits expired, she submitted a disability claim under the more stringent “any-occupation” definition that applied to longer- term benefits. MetLife approved that claim in July 2002 and began paying benefits. MetLife performed a periodic review in 2005. It determined then that Holmstrom was no longer disabled and terminated her benefits. After MetLife upheld its decision on administrative appeal (Holmstrom’s final administrative remedy), Holmstrom filed suit in federal court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).
    [Show full text]
  • Rptr Bryant Edtr Rosen Americans at Risk
    1 RPTR BRYANT EDTR ROSEN AMERICANS AT RISK: MANIPULATION AND DECEPTION IN THE DIGITAL AGE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2020 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jan Schakowsky [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Schakowsky, Castor, Veasey, Kelly, O'Halleran, Lujan, Cardenas, Blunt Rochester, Soto, Matsui, McNerney, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Rodgers, Burgess, Latta, Guthrie, Bucshon, Hudson, Carter, and Walden (ex officio). Staff Present: Jeff Carroll, Staff Director; Evan Gilbert, Deputy Press Secretary; Lisa Goldman, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, 2 Deputy Staff Director; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member Service Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts, Press Assistant; Chloe Rodriguez, Policy Analyst; Sydney Terry, Policy Coordinator; Anna Yu Professional Staff Member; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; S.K. Bowen, Minority Press Assistant; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Tyler Greenberg, Minority Staff Assistant; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy & Environment & Climate Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; Zack Roday, Minority Communications Director; and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment & Climate Change. 3 Ms. Schakowsky. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce will now come to order. We will begin with member statements, and I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonic, Infrasonic, and Ultrasonic Frequencies
    SONIC, INFRASONIC, AND ULTRASONIC FREQUENCIES: The Utilisation of Waveforms as Weapons, Apparatus for Psychological Manipulation, and as Instruments of Physiological Influence by Industrial, Entertainment, and Military Organisations. TOBY HEYS A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Liverpool John Moores University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2011 1 ABSTRACT This study is a trans-disciplinary and trans-historical investigation into civilian and battlefield contexts in which speaker systems have been utilised by the military-industrial and military-entertainment complexes to apply pressure to mass social groupings and the individuated body. Drawing on authors such as historian/sociologist Michel Foucault, economist Jacques Attali, philosopher Michel Serres, political geographer/urban planner Edward Soja, musician/sonic theorist Steve Goodman, and cultural theorist/urbanist Paul Virilio, this study engages a wide range of texts to orchestrate its arguments. Conducting new strains of viral theory that resonate with architectural, neurological, and political significance, this research provides new and original analysis about the composition of waveformed geography. Ultimately, this study listens to the ways in which the past and current utilisation of sonic, infrasonic, and ultrasonic frequencies as weapons, apparatus for psychological manipulation, and instruments of physiological influence, by industrial, civilian, entertainment, and military organisations, predict future techniques of socio­ spatialised organisation. In chapter one it is argued that since the inception of wired radio speaker systems into U.S. industrial factories in 1922, the development of sonic strategies based primarily on the scoring of architectonic spatiality, cycles of repetition, and the enveloping dynamics of surround sound can be traced to the sonic torture occurring in Guantanamo Bay during the first decade of the twenty-first century.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading the Surface: the Danish Gothic of B.S. Ingemann, H.C
    Reading the Surface: The Danish Gothic of B.S. Ingemann, H.C. Andersen, Karen Blixen and Beyond Kirstine Marie Kastbjerg A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2013 Reading Committee: Marianne Stecher. Chair Jan Sjaavik Marshall Brown Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Scandinavian Studies ©Copyright 2013 Kirstine Marie Kastbjerg Parts of chapter 7 are reprinted by permission of the publishers from “The Aesthetics of Surface: the Danish Gothic 1820-2000,” in Gothic Topographies ed. P.M. Mehtonen and Matti Savolainen (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 153–167. Copyright © 2013 University of Washington Abstract Reading the Surface: The Danish Gothic of B.S. Ingemann, H.C. Andersen, Karen Blixen and Beyond Kirstine Marie Kastbjerg Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor in Danish Studies Marianne Stecher Department of Scandinavian Studies Despite growing ubiquitous in both the popular and academic mind in recent years, the Gothic has, perhaps not surprisingly, yet to be examined within the notoriously realism-prone literary canon of Denmark. This dissertation fills that void by demonstrating an ongoing negotiation of Gothic conventions in select works by canonical Danish writers such as B.S. Ingemann, Hans Christian Andersen, and Karen Blixen (Isak Dinesen), as well as contemporary writers such as Peter Høeg and Leonora Christina Skov. This examination does not only broaden our understanding of these culturally significant writers and the discourses they write within and against, it also adds to our understanding of the Gothic – an infamously malleable and indefinable literary mode – by redirecting attention to a central feature of the Gothic that has not received much critical attention: the emphasis on excess, spectacle, clichéd conventions, histrionic performances, its hyperbolic rhetorical style, and hyper-visual theatricality.
    [Show full text]
  • A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Decoding the Language of a Psychopath BY
    A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Decoding the Language of a Psychopath BY KERRI ANDERSON A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology California Baptist University School of Behavioral Sciences 2017 ii SCHOOL OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES The thesis of Kerri Anderson, approved by her Committee, has been accepted and approved by the Faculty of the School of Behavioral Sciences, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology. Thesis Committee: _____________________________ [Name, Title] _____________________________ [Name, Title] _____________________________ [Name, Title] Committee Chairperson [Date] iii DEDICATION It is so common to be traditional and dedicate a work of science to one’s parents, spouses, children, friends, and mentors. As if one felt the need to give back for what has been taken. But a contribution to science, and I have desperately tried here to make a contribution to science, always includes a vast amount of taking from previous researchers, professors, and scholars. Then adding a little bit according to one’s ability and then giving back not to one’s scholars and colleagues but to the whole community and to other people as well, who might find the work interesting and resourceful, and bring it on. It is for those individuals that this work has been written and to them that it is dedicated so, here is my Forensic Psychology Master’s Thesis to whoever finds it interesting and a viable contribution to uncovering the root causes of psychopathy. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr.
    [Show full text]