Katherine R. O' Farrell 2016

Assessment of emotional processes and psychopathy among offenders using both behavioural and physiological measures Katherine R. O’ Farrell 2016 A thesis submitted to Cardiff University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology i ii DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfillment of the r equirements for the degree of PhD Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the resul t of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… iii STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consen t for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter -library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date …………………… …… STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter -library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Aca demic Standards & Quality Committee. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… iv Summary Psychopathy is a personality disorder, the boundaries and content of which lack clarity and consensus. Researchers and clinicians tend to agree on one key aspect: affective hypo -responsivity. Recent evidence suggests that this disposition may be specific to c ertain features of psychopathy, and that affective deficits may be specific to aversive stimuli. Recognising that existing tests of emo tion processing in relation to psychopathy have tended to rely on facial affect recognition, the present work delineated emotion processing into several components which were assessed in relation to the psychopathy dimensions broadly labelled primary and secondary psychopathic traits . Use of the same pictorial stimulus set allowed for an examination of processing of affective cues in terms of categorisation of affect, physiological response assessed through pupillometry, and influence on behaviour. Emotion experience was assessed through self -report. This approach allowed an examination of whether deficient threat reactivity is consistently found across the different manifestations of emotion. Moreover, by assessing psychopathy in terms of primary and second ary psychopathic traits , the generalisation of threat deficits across the variants could also be examined. Recognising the existing debate regarding the content of psychopathy, the present work also utilised two alternative measures of the disorder, the Ps ychopathy Checklist: Screening Version, and the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Assessing components of emotion processing in relation to the psychopathy dimensions within a sample of 94 adult male offenders revealed the specificity of threat deficits in re lation to PCL:SV Factor 1. Contrary to hypotheses, physiological reactivity to affect was intact for offenders high on primary psychopathic traits . For offenders high on secondary psychopathic traits, affective responses across the components were intact b ut an atypical pattern of autonomic activity was found. Assessment of multiple components of affect therefore allowed a more subtle pattern of psychopathic emotion processing to emerge and highlighted the multifaceted nature of psychopathy. v Acknowledg ments The best efforts are team efforts and, although the responsibility of putting pen to paper was mine, many people helped me find the words. My supervisor Bob Snowden, and extended supervisory team of Job van der Schalk, Nicola Gray and Dave McGonigle, provided me with valuable feedback and guidance for which I am very grateful. I am indebted to Bob for his patience , good humour and insight; thank you for teaching me to be a better researcher. I hope this PhD will be a source of pride for my family, my sisters Rebecca and Hannah, and my parents Kevin and Marese . Thank you for your co nstant love and support; I will always try to make you proud. To my squad – Angharad, Annie, Lucy and Sinead – you amazing women will never know how much lightness you have given me over the past few years. Long may our lives stay entwined. Thank you to the National University of Ireland and Cardiff University for funding my research, to Nina, Lorraine and Fran and all the staff at the prison site where I collected my data, f or their support and guidance; to the offender population for their participation; to the Head of School , Petroc Sumner, and former Head of School , Edward Wilding, for their leadership; to all administrative and (particularly) IT staff for their help , to Amie, Dan and Aimee fr om my lab group, and members of the Emotions and Intergroup Relations research group , for their valuable feedback. For my Luke , who battled cancer while I battled my thesis, for teaching me perspectiv e, and how to be quietly strong; for always knowing that even if you couldn’t help with my statistics, that a cwtch and some cake fixes most things. Thank you for your hand in mine. vi Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 1.1 Psychopathy ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 1.1.1 Why stud y psychopathy ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 1.1.2 What is psychopathy ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 1.2 Theoretical Grounding ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2 1.2.1 Historical conceptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 1.2.1.1 Cleckley’s Clinical Profile ................................ ................................ ...................... 2 1.2.1.2 Primary and Secondary Psychopathy ................................ ................................ ..... 5 1.2.1.3 The Low -Fear and Low -Punishment Hypotheses ................................ .................. 8 1.2.2 Theories of modern psychopathy ................................ ................................ ................ 11 1.2.2.1 The Amygdala Dysfunction Hypothesis ................................ ............................... 11 1.2.2.2 The Response Modulation Hypothesis ................................ ................................ .14 1.2.2.3 The Dual -Process Model ................................ ................................ ...................... 18 1.2.2 .3.1 Primary psychopathic traits ................................ ................................ ........... 21 1.2.2 .3.2 Secondary psychopathic traits ................................ ................................ ....... 23 1.3. Emotion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 25 1.3.1 Why is it important to study emotion in psychopathy ................................ ................ 25 1.3.2 What is emotion ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 27 1.4 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 Chapter 2: Preparatory Work ................................ ................................ .............................. 36 2.1 Task Development and Progression ................................ ................................ ................... 36 2.2 Stimulus Selection Progression: Development of main stimulus set ................................ .36 2.2.1 Year 1 Stimu lus Set ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 38 2.2.2 Year 1 Ratings Task ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 40 2.2.3 Year 2 Stimulus Set ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 43 2. 2.4 Year 2 Ratings Task ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 44 2.3 Affective Priming Targets ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 54 2.4 Final Task Structure and Undergraduate Results ................................ ............................... 56 2.4.1 Affect Categorisation Task ................................ ................................ .......................... 56 2.4.1.1 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 57 2.4.1.1.1 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 57 2.4.1.1.2. Materials, Design and Procedure ................................ ................................ .57 2.4.1.2 Results and Discussion ...............................

Load more