City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works
Student Theses John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Summer 8-2019
Do Psychopathic Traits Influence Distractibility by Empathy- Eliciting Pictures?
Priya M. Reji CUNY John Jay College, [email protected]
How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know!
More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_etds/123 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu
This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Running Head: PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 1
Do Psychopathic Traits Influence Distractibility by Empathy-Eliciting Pictures?
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Masters in Forensic Psychology John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York
Priya Mariam Reji
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 2
Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………...... 7 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………9 Unmasking the Psychopath: What is Psychopathy……………………………………...... 9
The PCL-R and PPI-R: Measures of Psychopathy………………………………………10
Triarchic Model of Psychopathy…………………………………………………………12
Conceptualizations of Psychopathy……………………………………………………...14
Etiology of Psychopathy…………………………………………………………………15
Low fear model of psychopathy…………………………………………………………16
The Response Modulation Hypothesis (RMH)………………………………………….18
Lack of Empathy in Psychopathy………………………………………………………..19
Current Study Overview…………………………………………………………………24
Methods………………………………………………………………………………………….26
Pilot Stimulus Norming Study …………………………………………………………..26
Participants……………………………………...………………………...... 26
eStroop Task Participants…………………………………………………………..……27
Procedures and Measures………………………………………………………………...28
Demographic Survey…………………………………………………………….28
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R)…………………………...28
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)……………………………………………..30
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)………………………………………30
The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM)…………………………………...31
Emotional(e) Stroop Paradigm Stimuli…………………………………………………..32
Empathy and Arousal Ratings…………………………………………………………...32
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 3
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….33
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………...33
Correlation Between Personality Measures……………………………………………...33
Reaction Time…….……………………………………………………………………...34
Accuracy…………………………………………………………………………………34
Arousal Ratings…………………………………………………………………………..35
Empathy Ratings…………………………………………………………………………35
PPI-R FD and Reaction Time……….…………………………………………………...35
PPI-R FD and Accuracy……………………………………………………..…………...36
PPI-R FD and Arousal Ratings………………………………………..…………...... 37
PPI-R FD and Empathy Ratings…………………………………………………...... 37
PPI-R SCI and Reaction Time…………………….………………...... 37
PPI-R SCI and Accuracy…………………………………………...... 38
PPI-R SCI and Arousal Ratings………………………………………...... 38
PPI-R SCI and Empathy Ratings………………………………………...... 38
PPI-R CH and Reaction Time…………………..………………………………………..39
PPI-R CH and Accuracy…………………………………………………………………39
PPI-R CH and Arousal Ratings…………………………………………………………..39
PPI-R CH and Empathy Ratings………………………………………………………....40
Total PPI-R and Reaction Time……………..…………………………………………...40
Total PPI-R and Accuracy……………………………………………………………….40
Total PPI-R and Arousal Ratings………………………………………………………...41
Total PPI-R and Empathy Ratings…………………………………………………….....41
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 4
IRI EC and Reaction Time……………………………………………………..………...42
IRI EC and Accuracy…………………………………………………………………….42
IRI EC and Arousal Ratings……………………………………………………………..42
IRI EC and Empathy Ratings……………………………………………………………43
IRI PT and Reaction Time……………………………….………………………………43
IRI PT and Accuracy…………………………………………………………………….43
IRI PT and Arousal Ratings……………………………………………………………..43
IRI PT and Empathy Ratings……………………………………………………………44
IRI PD and Reaction Time…………………………………………………………....…44
IRI PD and Accuracy………………………………………………………………....…44
IRI PD and Arousal Ratings……………………………………………………………..45
IRI PD and Empathy Ratings……………………………………………………………45
TriPM Meanness and Reaction Time……………………………………………………46
TriPM Meanness and Accuracy………………………………………………………….46
TriPM Meanness and Arousal Ratings…………………………………………………..46
TriPM Meanness and Empathy Ratings…………………………………………………47
TriPM Boldness and Reaction Time……………………………………………………..47
TriPM Boldness and Accuracy………………………………………..…………………47
TriPM Boldness and Arousal Ratings……………………………………………………48
TriPM Boldness and Empathy Ratings…………………………………………...……...48
TriPM Disinhibition and Reaction Time……………………………………………...…49
TriPM Disinhibition and Accuracy……………………………………………………...49
TriPM Disinhibition and Arousal Ratings……………………………………………….49
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 5
TriPM Disinhibition and Empathy Ratings……………………………………………...50
TriPM Total and Reaction Time…………………………………………….…………..50
TriPM Total and Accuracy………………………………………………………………50
TriPM Total and Arousal Ratings………………………………………………………..51
TriPM Total and Empathy Ratings………………………………………………………51
STAI Trait and Reaction Time…………………………………………………………..52
STAI Trait and Accuracy………………………………………………………………...52
STAI Trait and Arousal Ratings…………………………………………………………52
STAI Trait and Empathy Ratings…………………………………………………..……52
Relationship between Task Accuracy and Empathy Ratings……………………………53
Relationship between Reaction Time and Empathy Ratings………………...…………..53
Relationship between Task Accuracy and Arousal Ratings……………………………..53
Relationship between Reaction Time and Arousal Ratings…………….………………..53
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….....53
Affective Empathy and Task Performance………………………………………………59
Affective Empathy and Psychopathic Traits……………………………………………..61
Response Modulation Hypothesis………………………………………………………..62
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….62
Future Directions………………………………………………………………………...64
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..……………..65
References…………………………………………………………………………………...….67
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Personality Measures…….……....79
Table 2 Correlations Between Personality Measures…………….…………….…….…..80
Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations…….……….………………….……….……….81
Table 4 Standard Error for Reaction Time with Covariates……………………..……….81
Table 5 Standard Error for Accuracy with Covariates…….……….……….……….…...82
Table 6 Standard Error for Arousal Ratings with Covariates…….……….……….……..82
Table 7 Standard Error for Empathy Ratings with Covariates………….………...……...83
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 PPI-R FD T Scores and Reaction Time Differences………………………...... …84
Figure 2 PPI-R Coldheartedness (CH) T Score and Empathy Ratings…….……….……..85
Figure 3 Total PPI-R Scores and Empathy Ratings…….……….……….……….…….…86
Figure 4 IRI Empathic Concern and Reaction Time…….……….……….……….………87
Figure 5 IRI Empathic Concern and Arousal Ratings…….……….……….…………...…88
Figure 6 IRI Empathic Concern and Empathy Ratings…….……….……….…...….…….89
Figure 7 IRI Personal Distress and Empathy Ratings……………………………………..90
Figure 8 TriPM Meanness and Empathy Ratings…….……….……….……….…………91
Figure 9 TriPM Total and Empathy Ratings…….……….……….……….……….……...92
Figure 10 Arousal Ratings and Accuracy…….……….……….……….………..…………93
Figure 11 Arousal Ratings and Reaction Time…….……….……….…….……….….……94
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 7
Abstract Empathy is a crucial component in forming interpersonal connections, and reflects the ability to share and understand the feelings of others. Psychopathy is often associated with a reduced ability to feel and display empathetic concern towards other people. The Response Modulation
Hypothesis argues that such individuals have an attentional deficit, which makes it difficult for them to shift focus between stimuli, thus individuals who have high scores on the interpersonal- affective factor of psychopathy have an increased ability to ignore emotional stimuli that are goal-irrelevant. The current study investigated whether psychopathic traits would influence distractibility on an emotional Stroop (eStroop) task. One hundred and thirteen undergraduates completed a series of personality measures and performed the eStroop task where they identified the color of a square that was superimposed on negative and positive images chosen to elicit empathy, or neutral pictures that served as controls. After the eStroop task, participants saw all the pictures again and rated their level of arousal and empathy towards each picture. Our hypotheses were partly supported, but only for positive pictures; Psychopathic Personality
Inventory-Revised Fearless Dominance factor (PPI-R FD) scores were negatively correlated with reaction time for positive pictures, but positively correlated for negative pictures. Moreover, task accuracy, and arousal and empathy ratings were not modulated by PPI-R FD. In contrast, PPI-R
Coldheartedness (CH) scores were unrelated to performance on the eStroop task, but showed negative correlations with arousal and empathy ratings. Thus, PPI-R FD appears linked to deficits in relatively automatic bottom-up processes, whereas PPI-R CH is more associated with processing deficits that are more deliberative in nature. PPI-R Total Scores, Triarchic
Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) Meanness, and TriPM Total Psychopathy Scores also showed negative correlations with empathy ratings, even though they had no relationship with task performance. Conversely, Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) Empathic Concern (EC) and IRI
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 8
Personal Distress (PD) were positively correlated with empathy ratings for negative, neutral, and positive pictures. Therefore, much like the PPI-R CH subscale, these personality measures seem to be linked to top-down processing related to subjective ratings, rather than bottom-up task performance.
Keywords: psychopathy, empathy, Response Modulation Hypothesis, top-down and bottom-up processing
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 9
Introduction
Psychopathy has been associated with emotional deficits, such as a reduced ability to display empathetic concern for others. According to the response modulation hypothesis (RMH) proposed by Newman and colleagues (1997), psychopathy is linked to an attention deficit, rather than an empathy deficit, which enables psychopathic individuals to tune out on any external distractors that are goal-irrelevant. The goal of this project was to determine whether the underlying behaviors rooted in psychopathy are a result of deficits in attention or emotional processing. Participants completed a goal-oriented emotional Stroop (eStroop) task; empathy- eliciting pictures were presented as distractors while they rapidly identified the color of a square superimposed on each picture.) Their task performance (reaction time and accuracy) provides insight as to which specific psychopathic behavioral traits make a person more or less prone to the effects of empathy-inducing distractors.
Unmasking the Psychopath: What is Psychopathy?
Cleckley’s book, The Mask of Sanity (1941), had a profound impact on the field of psychopathy. Cleckley, as cited by Salekin and colleagues (2004), provided significant insight into the affective, interpersonal, and behavioral characteristics underlying psychopathy by highlighting sixteen characteristic features (Salekin, Neumann, Leistico & Zalot, 2004).
According to Cleckley, some of the interpersonal characteristics found amongst psychopaths include manipulation, superficial charm, and intelligence—that create a façade of normality, or a
“mask of sanity” (Cleckley in Salekin et al., 2004). In addition, Cleckley believed that the behavior of psychopaths was distinctive from other individuals due to their general irresponsibility, attraction to thrill-seeking activities, and propensity to engage in moral transgressions and/or antisocial acts (Salekin et al., 2004). Furthermore, psychopaths fail to show
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 10 signs of remorse or empathy—characteristics that non-psychopaths rely on to understand and feel the emotions of other human beings and build relationships (Salekin et al., 2004).
Cleckley identified two distinct dimensions of psychopathy, namely, primary and secondary psychopathy (Cleckley, 1941; Karpman, 1948). Primary psychopathy is associated with an innate inability in affective information processing, while secondary psychopathy reflects environmentally-acquired deficits—arising from parental abuse or rejection—that leads to antisocial behavior (Karpman, 1948; Skeem, Johansson, Andershed, Kerr, & Louden 2007).
According to Cleckley, in primary psychopathy, one would expect to see pathological maladaptive characteristics, including a lack of conscience, inability to take responsibility for one’s own actions, and fearlessness (Cleckley as cited in Vaughn, Edens, Howard, & Smith,
2009). There are also non-pathological characteristics, such as low anxiety, coherent thinking patterns, and interpersonal charm (Vaughn et al., 2009). As noted by Vaughn et al. (2009),
Cleckley associated secondary psychopathic traits with symptoms indicative of emotional reactivity and mental turmoil, such as drug and alcohol use, impulsivity, interpersonal aggression, suicidal ideation, and involvement in destructive behaviors. Due to the fact that secondary psychopathy results from emotional adaptation to negative environmental circumstances, it may be more receptive to treatment than primary psychopathy (Skeem,
Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003).
The PCL-R and PPI-R: Measures of Psychopathy
Arguably, one of the most important contributions to the assessment of psychopathy was the development of the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980). The PCL has since been revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991; Hare, 2003), but still emphasizes the assessment of deviant and antisocial behaviors among the criminal population (Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989). PCL-R
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 11 scores can be used to break psychopathy into two factors, factor 1 (interpersonal/affective) and factor 2 (impulsive/antisocial; Harpur et al., 1989). People high in factor 1 lack empathy, are selfish, and exploit others (Harpur et al., 1989). Factor 2 centers on lack of behavioral inhibition, thrill-seeking, and irresponsible behavior (Harpur et al., 1989). Hare (2003) later proposed that
PCL-R scores could be assessed using a four-facet; Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and
Antisocial model (Hare & Neumann, 2005). Hare and Neumann (2005) suggested that one of the strengths of this new model was that it could be used in longitudinal research to help uncover the relationship between early antisocial tendencies (i.e., callousness, sensation-seeking, impulsivity) and the development of later antisocial characteristics of psychopathic personality.
While the PCL-R is frequently used to assess psychopathy within the criminal population, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) was developed for use within community samples and undergraduate students, with the idea that psychopathic traits can occur on a continuum. The revised version of the PPI, or PPI-R
(Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), is a self-report measure with eight subscales that measure specific psychopathic traits (Machiavellian Egocentricity, Social Potency, Fearlessness, Blame
Externalization, Impulsive Nonconformity, Carefree Nonplanfulness, Stress Immunity, and
Coldheartedness; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). Seven of these subscales load onto two high- order factors, namely PPI-I (Fearless Dominance [FD]) and PPI-II (Self-centered impulsivity
[SCI]), which differentiate between the emotional-interpersonal, and antisocial facets of psychopathy, respectively (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005; Benning, Patrick,
Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003). PPI-I is associated with social dominance, stress resilience, risk-taking, and low levels of anxiety and empathy (Benning et al., 2003; Benning et al., 2005).
Additionally, it is also associated with high social potency, narcissistic personality features, as
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 12 well as the interpersonal personality features underlying psychopathy—like manipulation, grandiosity, and deceitfulness (Benning et al., 2005). Benning et al. (2003) found that PPI-I was positively associated with socioeconomic status (SES) and verbal IQ. In contrast, PPI-II was positively correlated with alienation and aggression, low socialization, antisocial behavior, and substance abuse, and negatively correlated with measures of SES and verbal IQ (Benning et al.,
2003). According to Benning et al., (2005), Fearless Dominance, (PPI-I) is more reflective of the primary psychopathic traits originally described by Cleckley (1941), whereas Self-Centered
Impulsivity, (PPI-II), is inherent in Cleckley’s definition of the secondary psychopathic traits. In a study conducted by Benning and colleagues (2005) consisting of a sample of male inmates who were evaluated for antisocial personality disorder using the DSM- III- R criteria, PPI-I was shown to be modestly related to the factor 1 component of the PCL-R (r ~ .3), while PPI-II had a stronger correlation with factor 2 PCL-R scores (r ~.4).
In a sample of 50 male inmates, the PPI Coldheartedness (CH) subscale showed moderate correlations with factor 1 (r = .37) and weak correlations with factor 2 (r = .21) of the PCL-R
(Poythress, Edens, & Lilienfeld, 1998). However, the PPI-R CH subscale does not load onto either of the two higher order factors of the PPI-R (Benning et al., 2003), and so has been understudied despite the fact that PPI-R CH assesses remorse and empathy—characteristics that are central components of psychopathy (Benning et al., 2005). Some research suggests that the lack of empathy component of psychopathy is what gives rise to antisocial behavior (Cooke,
Michie, Hart, & Clark, 2004; Hare, 1996).
Triarchic Model of Psychopathy
The Triarchic model of psychopathy evolved from Patrick, Fowles, and Krueger’s (2009) idea that psychopathy should be defined using both historical and present-day perspectives.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 13
Thus, Patrick (2010) developed the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM), a 58 item self- report instrument consisting of three scales: Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition. The TriPM
Meanness and Disinhibtion scales were developed using the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory
(ESI; Krueger, Markon, Patrick, Benning & Kramer, 2007), whereas the Boldness scale was newly developed.
The TriPM Meanness scale measures a lack of affective empathy, thrill-seeking through destructive means, rebelliousness (including a lack of regard for authority), physical cruelty to people and animals, and a tendency to exploit others for self-benefit (Patrick et al.,2009). Thus,
Meanness is conceptually related to the PPI-R’s definition of the Coldheartedness subscale
(Patrick et al., 2009). Furthermore, TriPM Meanness can also be viewed as “agentic disaffiliation”, a motivation style where a person seeks out their own interest without concern for, and at the expense of others (Patrick et al., 2009). Meanness is different from social withdrawal, defined as “moving away from people” (Horney, 1945), in that it centers on confrontation and exploitation (Patrick et al., 2009). In other words, it defines characteristics of
“moving against people” (Horney, 1945).
The TriPM Disinhibition scale refers to impulsivity, as well as a lack of capacity for emotion regulation, planfulness, and foresight (Patrick et al., 2009). Some of the common characteristics that are indicative of this construct include irresponsibility, lack of self-control, impatience, alienation, and distrust (Patrick et al., 2009). In contrast, the TriPM Boldness scale measures more adaptive characteristics, such as the capacity to remain calm and focused in stressful or threatening situations, the ability to move past stressful events with ease, self- efficacy, and the ability to cope with the unknown in the presence of danger (Patrick et al.,
2009). Behavioral manifestations relating to Boldness include social poise, assertiveness and
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 14 convincingness, and a willingness to take risks (Patrick et al., 2009). According to Patrick and colleagues (2009), PPI-I—consisting of the stress immunity, social potency, and fearlessness subscales—mirror many of the characteristics of TriPM Boldness. Additionally, some items from factor 1 of the PCL-R, such as charm/glibness and grandiose sense of self-worth also represent characteristics of TriPM Boldness (Patrick, 2007; Patrick et al., 2009). Conceptually, the PCL-R factor 1 does not strongly map onto TriPM Boldness or PPI-I constructs; however,
PCL-R factor 2 is strongly conceptually linked with TriPM Meanness (Patrick et al., 2009).
More recently, empirical evidence has confirmed these relationships. In a sample of 631 undergraduate students, PPI-FD was found to have a strong correlation with TriPM Boldness (r
= .82), a moderate correlation with TriPM Meanness (r = .30), and a weak correlation with
TriPM Disinhibition (r = .01; Hall et al., 2014). Among a sample of male inmates (n = 157), zero-order correlations indicated that TriPM Disinhibition showed weak relationships with PCL-
R total scores (r = .28), and factor 1 PCL-R scores (r = .12), as well as a moderate relationship with factor 2 PCL-R scores (r = .35; Venables, Hall, & Patrick, 2014). Additionally, Venables and colleagues found that TriPM Meanness was moderately correlated with PCL-R total scores
(r = .37), as well as factor 2 PCL-R scores (r = .41), but only weakly correlated with factor 1
PCL-R scores (r = .23). TriPM Boldness showed weak correlations with factor 1 (r = .29) and factor 2 (r = .28) PCL-R scores, but moderate correlations (r = .35) with PCL-R total scores
(Venables et al., 2014).
Conceptualizations of Psychopathy
Numerous measures have been developed to identify psychopathic traits within community and forensic samples. The multitude of measures in existence are reflective of the different conceptualizations of psychopathy within the broader field. For example, the triarchic
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 15 model of psychopathy was created to characterize traits based on neurobiology, whereas the five- factor model is lexically-based and is used to diagnose numerous psychological conditions within a clinical setting—including psychopathy (Drislane, Brislin, Jones, & Patrick, 2018).
According to Patrick & Drislane (2014), there has been much debate on what constitutes psychopathy. Namely, the extent to which different factors of psychopathy measures relate to each other, as well as the variations found among high psychopathy scorers. By the same token, there is also added concern as to how much self-reported assessments of psychopathy differ compared to clinical measures (Patrick & Drislane, 2014). Despite the evolution that has occurred over the years due to these question, there is still contention within the scientific community over whether criminality and antisocial behavior should be considered an outcome of psychopathy—as defined by Cleckley—or if it should instead be thought of as a determining characteristic of psychopathy (Patrick & Drislane, 2014). The triarchic model of psychopathy was developed as a means to address the contradictory conceptions of psychopathy which were brought about from previously developed assessments (Patrick & Drislane, 2014).
For the purpose of this study, the two psychopathy measures that were used were the PPI-
R and TriPM. These two measures will highlight how the factors of these two models are correlated, and to what extent. Moreover, it will also help provide insight on which traits associated with psychopathy act as an influential factor during a goal-oriented task measuring attentional processing of emotional information.
Etiology of Psychopathy
One of the first studies to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to evaluate the brain activity of psychopathic (PCL-R scores above 23.6) and nonpsychopathic (PCL-R scores below 23.6) male inmates was conducted by Kiehl and colleagues (2001). They found that
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 16 during an affective memory task, psychopaths showed atypical activity in brain regions that are involved with emotional processing, but normal activity in regions associated with cognitive processing (Kiehl et al., 2001). Participants were shown 10 words in two seconds and then performed a memory task where they were asked to press a button to indicate which words were originally shown. While some of the words had negative affective content (e.g., misery, blood), other words were neutral (e.g., brass, card). Previous studies had shown while there was no difference in accuracy between psychopaths and non-psychopaths in remembering emotional words—psychopaths generally took a longer time to process words with emotional content
(Williamson, Harpur, & Hare, 1991). Indeed, Kiehl and colleagues (2001) found no significant psychopathy-related deficits in performance. The authors suggested that this was because participants with psychopathy had engaged in extra cognitive effort to remember the emotional words because they did not experience increased emotion for those words. In support of this, they found significant psychopathy-related deficits in emotion-related paralimbic regions
(amygdala, in addition to the anterior and posterior cingulate), but enhanced activity in the lateral frontal cortex during both encoding and recognition of the words.
Low fear model of psychopathy
Different theories have been used to explain deviant behavioral patterns that are common within psychopathy. One such theory is the low fear model of psychopathy. Lykken (1957) proposed the low fear model of psychopathy, the idea that psychopaths experience low levels of fear, and as a result, other characteristics, such as risk-taking behaviors, failure to learn from punishment, and lack of remorse, become exacerbated. Smith and Lilienfeld also suggest that because fear typically prevents aggression towards others, the low fear model helps to explain why psychopaths are more prone to engage in violence than non-psychopaths (Smith &
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 17
Lilienfeld, 2015). Numerous studies have provided support for the low fear model, finding that high psychopathy is associated with reduced responses to aversive stimuli, a failure to learn how to avoid behaviors that result in punishment (passive avoidance), a diminished capacity to display fear potentiated startle responses, and conditioned fear responses (for review see Smith &
Lilienfeld, 2015). Relatedly, Blair’s (2001) violence inhibition model argued that the lack of fear and the inability to respond to the distress cues of other individuals in psychopathy is a result of neurophysiological deficits in the amygdala. Blair (2007) later suggested that deficits in both the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) play a profound role in the compromised moral reasoning of psychopaths. The amygdala allows individuals to distinguish between good and bad, and provides reinforcing information to the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), and vmPFC, which modulate behavior accordingly (Blair, 2007). However, according to Anderson and Kiehl
(2012), the emotional deficits associated with psychopathy also involve paralimbic regions, as evidenced by the behavioral changes that occur when these areas are lesioned or damaged.
Paralimbic abnormalities not only influence the processing of emotional information, but they also affect how it is integrated with other cognitive processes. Kiehl and Hoffman (2011) stated that the psychopath is “completely rational and morally insane” (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011, p. 20).
While individuals without psychopathy can feel the difference between right and wrong, the psychopath cannot and so they have to think about it (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011). In other words, they know “morality’s words but not its music” (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011).
Despite its popularity, many studies have also opposed Lykken’s low fear model of psychopathy. Most notably, Newman and Schmitt (1999) found that fear was not associated with
PCL-R scores among male inmates. They explored the relationship between anxiety and psychopathy in a sample of 104 Caucasian and 113 African-American male inmates. The PCL-R
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 18 was used to divide participants into a high psychopathy group (scoring 30 or above) and a low psychopathy/control group (scoring 20 or below). Various measures were used to assess anxiety and fear was assessed with the Harm Avoidance (HA) scale and the Constraint (CON) factor of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (Tellegen, 1982). When hierarchical regression analyses were used to explore the relationship between psychopathy and fear, contrary to the low fear hypothesis, the semi partial correlations indicated a positive relationship between PCL-R total scores and anxiety, but only for African-Americans. Furthermore, there were no significant correlations between psychopathy and fear (Schmitt & Newman 1999). Therefore, it is possible that the behavioral traits that are closely aligned with psychopathy are a result of more general emotional or attentional deficits, and not solely a reduced capacity in processing fear.
The Response Modulation Hypothesis (RMH)
In contrast to the low fear hypothesis, the response modulation hypothesis (RMH) suggests that psychopathy is related to an attentional deficit, rather than an emotional one
(Newman, Schmitt, & Voss, 1997). The most recent iteration of the RMH model states that an early attentional bottleneck leads to selective attention deficits such that information is processed serially, rather than in parallel. This interferes with the capacity to process any information that is outside the primary focus (for review see Smith & Lilienfeld, 2015). The RMH suggests that when they have a goal, psychopaths have an enhanced ability to tune out any external distractors that prevent them from achieving their aim, thus they have an enhanced ability to focus on information that is relevant to their success (Baskin-Sommers, Curtin, & Newman, 2015).
Furthermore, according to the RMH, psychopaths also experience deficits in performance when cognitive tasks are highly demanding and so create an attentional overload (Smith & Lilienfeld,
2015). Smith and Lilienfeld’s (2015) meta-analysis of 94 studies found some support for the
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 19
RMH, in that psychopathic traits were found to have a small to medium relationship with atypical response modulation. In line with the RMH, these deficits were present for both emotional and emotionally-neutral stimuli.
Lack of Empathy in Psychopathy
Empathy is a primal, universal emotion that aids in identifying and understanding the emotional states of others (Deutsch & Madle, 1975), and has often been linked to prosocial behaviors (Decety & Lamm, 2006). Relatedly, psychopathy-related antisociality has often been linked to the lack of empathy that is commonly associated with this disorder. Empathy can be disassociated into two separate entities—emotional (affective) empathy, which includes relatively automatic feelings such as compassion, tenderness, softheartedness, and sympathy
(Decety & Lamm, 2006, p. 1146), and cognitive empathy, the ability to place ourselves in another’s shoes, and adopt a new perspective (Batson et al., 1991; Decety & Lamm, 2006). There is considerable neurobiological evidence to support the idea that different neural circuits are responsible for these two different aspects of empathy.
Psychopathy has been more strongly linked to impairments in affective rather than cognitive empathy (Brook & Kosson, 2013), although it is sometimes difficult to tease these two constructs apart. For example, Blair (2005) suggested that psychopathy-related lack of empathy might be attributed to a reduced capacity for processing social signals, like facial cues. However, identifying facial expressions may rely on both cognitive and affective empathy. The latter may enhance performance, even if it is not necessary for correct identification to occur. Furthermore, there is mixed evidence for atypical processing of emotional facial expressions in psychopaths.
In a meta-analysis of 26 studies performed by Dawel, O’Kearney, McKone, and Palermo (2012) including both forensic and community samples, some studies showed an absence of
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 20 psychopathy-related deficits in facial recognition, such as Glass & Newman (2006). However,
Dawel and colleagues (2012) concluded that psychopathy was related to difficulties recognizing sad, surprised, and most interestingly, happy facial expressions. Brook and colleagues (2013) later suggested that PCL-R scores are more likely to be associated with facial processing deficits when more subtle stimuli are used. Indeed, one of the studies in Dawel et al.s’ meta-analysis found that psychopathy was inversely related to facial emotion recognition for milder expressions of sadness, anger, fear, shame, and happiness, but not more full-blown manifestations (Hastings, Tangney, & Stuewwig, 2008). They recruited 145 male inmates and their level of psychopathy was assessed using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening
Version (PCL: SV). Participants performed a facial recognition task, whereby they used Likert- scales (ranging from 1 to 7) to rate different facial expressions (anger, fear, shame, happiness, or sadness) that were presented at either 100% or 60% intensity of expression. PCL: SV scores were correlated (negatively) with accuracy for the 60% faces but not the 100% ones.
Similarly, Pham & Philippot (2010) also found evidence for psychopathy-related face processing deficits using a similar paradigm. They recruited male inmates identified as psychopaths (PCL-R scores between 25 and 32) and nonpsychopaths (PCL-R scores between 4 and 20), as well as participants from the community. The participants used Likert scales to rate various facial expressions in terms of happiness, fear, anger, sadness. Faces were presented in varying degrees of emotional intensity (0%, 30%, 70%, and 100%). Overall, the community members were far more accurate in identifying the facial expressions of emotion than the offenders. Compared to non-psychopathic criminals, criminal psychopaths showed poorer accuracy for happiness, anger, and disgust, but better accuracy for fear and sadness.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 21
Multiple studies have shown that there is little evidence for psychopathy-related deficits in theory of mind (the ability to image another’s point of view, a type of cognitive empathy;
Blair, 2005; Brook & Kosson, 2013; Dolan & Fullam, 2004; Kosson, Lorenz, & Newman, 2006;
Richell et al., 2003; Serper et al., 2007). However, there are relatively few other laboratory studies that have explored the connection (or lack thereof) between empathy and psychopathy. In one such study, a sample of 90 male inmates was divided into three categories based on their
PCL-R scores: High: PCL-R >21, Low: PCL-R 15-21, and non-psychopathic: PCL-R < 15 and their empathic responses were compared to those of 28 noncriminal controls (Domes,
Hollerbach, Vohs, Mokros, & Habermeyer, 2013). They performed the Reading-the-Mind-in- the-Eyes Test (RMET; Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001), which assesses theory of mind and the Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET; Dziobek et al., 2008) which assesses both cognitive and affective empathy. The MET stimuli consist of a series of photographs that depict individuals in various (mostly negative) emotional moods. In order to measure cognitive empathy, the participants have to identify the mental state of the individuals depicted in each picture from a choice of four emotions. Emotional empathy is assessed by asking participants to rate their emotional reactions towards each picture in terms of their arousal and how much concern they feel for the individual in the photo. The offenders in general scored lower in cognitive and affective empathy than the comparison group. Cognitive performance was related to education level; no relationship was found between psychopathy level and cognitive, or affective empathy (Domes et al., 2013).
Similarly, Pfabigan and colleagues (2015) found that skin conductance (SC) in response to videos of people in painful conditions (affective empathy) was lower in offenders than in controls, but that PCL-R scores did not moderate this. Their participants consisted of 14 high-
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 22 trait and 16 low-trait psychopathic male offenders, who were divided using a median split, such that the high psychopathic trait group had a mean PCL-R score of 27.43, while the lower psychopathic trait group had a mean PCL-R score of 16.31, they compared their responses to 15 community members, all of whom completed the PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) to screen out high psychopathic traits. All participants watched video clips depicting others with a painful facial expression while their SC was recorded. Additionally, participants completed the
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) to assess self-reported empathy. Although the high-trait and low-trait psychopathy group both showed reduced SC responses than the comparison group, the high-trait psychopathy group had empathy ratings similar to the comparison group (Pfabigan et al., 2015). The authors concluded that those scoring high on psychopathic traits have the capacity to understand how others respond to emotionally distressing situations, even if they fail to feel that way themselves (Pfabigan et al., 2015).
fMRI research has shed further light on the relationship between psychopathy and empathy. Somewhat surprisingly, Decety and colleagues (2013) found that male inmates with high PCLR scores (PCL-R ≥ 30) showed increased activity in the anterior insular cortex, a region that activates in response to the emotional aspects of pain, while passively viewing pictures depicting limbs in painful situations or faces with painful expressions (Decety, Skelly, & Kiehl,
2013). In a follow-up study, Decety and colleagues (2013) provided further insights about this activation, they also found a positive correlation between insula activity and high PCL-R (PCL-R
≥ 30) among male inmates when they imagined themselves in pain, but the opposite effect when they viewed others in pain (Decety, Chen, Harenski, & Kiehl, 2013). Moreover, when participants imagined another person in pain, Factor 1 (Interpersonal/Affective) scores were associated with increased ventral striatum activity, an area associated with reward processing.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 23
The authors suggested that this might indicate that these participants experienced pleasure in seeing another person in distress, and that psychopathy was related to a reduced capacity to feel appropriate emotions for others in pain, but not an inability to experience emotions, per se
(Decety, Chen, et al., 2013).
Despite a lack of consistency across studies as to whether psychopathy is related to reduced emotional responding to empathy-eliciting stimuli, many studies have shown that psychopathy is related to deficits in emotional (especially negative) information processing more generally (Arnett, Howland, Smith, & Newman, 1993; Blair, Jones, Clark, & Smith, 1997,
Casey, Rogers, Burns, & Yiend, 2012; Harenski, Harenski, Shane, & Kiehl, 2010; Levenston,
Patrick, Bradley, & Lang, 2000; Reidy, Zeichner, Hunnicutt-Ferguson, & Lilienfeld, 2008;
Verona, Sprague, & Sadeh, 2012). Event-related potential studies have also provided some interesting insights in understanding the underlying mechanisms relating to these deficits. One such electroencephalography (EEG) study from our lab found evidence for reduced processing of emotional stimuli among undergraduates with higher psychopathy scores, but that this was confined to low arousal stimuli (Medina, Kirilko, & Grose-Fifer, 2016). Medina and colleagues categorized participants into high-trait or low-trait psychopathy groups, based on their total PPI-
R scores and recorded their EEGs as they passively viewed neutral, positive, negative images from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2008). They found that psychopathic traits were related to less sustained late positive potentials (LPPs) and event-related potentials (ERPs) when viewing low-arousal emotional images. The LPP is thought to reflect greater attention and extended processing of a stimulus, thus this suggests that these images were not sufficiently salient to hold their attention. In contrast, we found no group differences in early stages of the LPP, this suggested that individuals with high psychopathic
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 24 traits were capable of experiencing the same level of arousal to emotional pictures as those with low psychopathic traits, but this arousal level was relatively short-lived (Medina et al., 2016).
In a related study, it was found that undergraduates with high psychopathic traits performed similarly to participants with low psychopathic traits on an eStroop task, which asked them to ignore the background distractor depicting pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral IAPS pictures (Carolan, Jaspers-Fayer, Asmaro, Douglas, & Liotti, 2014). Although there were no group-related differences in reaction time or accuracy, the high-trait psychopathy group had significantly smaller LPPs and early anterior positivity (EAP) when viewing emotional pictures than the low-trait group. Again, this suggests that the emotional pictures did not grab the attention of the high-trait psychopathy group.
Current Study Overview
While previous studies have provided valuable information as to how psychopathy modulates electrophysiological differences in response to emotionally stimulating images in undergraduates (Carolan et al., 2014; Medina et al., 2016), to my knowledge this is the first study to evaluate how psychopathy affects the processing of pictures designed to elicit empathy specifically. Studying psychopathy-related empathy deficits is important because lack of empathy plays a pivotal role in detrimental interpersonal relationships (Salekin et al., 2004). We used an eStroop task that was very similar to that used by Carolan et al. (2014). Participants were asked to identify the color of a small square displayed on top of a series of neutral, negative and positive empathy-eliciting pictures. We decided to study the relationship between psychopathic traits and empathy in undergraduates specifically, because although this relationship has been explored to some extent within the forensic population, it is not well understood how psychopathic traits affect empathy within the general population. Studying subclinical
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 25 psychopathic traits has been helpful in understanding how these can influence interpersonal relationships (Ali, Amorim, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009; Rilling et al., 2007).
In our study, we focused on investigating whether performance on the task was related to scores on the FD factor and CH subscales of the PPI-R, since both have been related to blunted emotionality. In addition, we assessed empathy independently using the Interpersonal Reactivity
Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) and examined whether IRI measures of empathy affected performance.
Participants rated the feelings of arousal and empathy levels that the pictures elicited after the completion of the eStroop task. This allowed us to determine whether there was a mismatch between objective measures of behavioral performance and subjective ratings.
The underlying purpose of this study was to further the field’s understanding of the influence of empathic deficits in psychopathy in an undergraduate sample. Our study differed from that of Carolan and colleagues (2014) in three important ways. First, we only used empathy-related emotional pictures, secondly, we used fewer pictures and randomized their presentation, whereas in the study conducted by Carolan and colleagues (2014), the stimuli were presented in blocks. This is a key distinction, as the methodology used by Carolan et al. may have led to habituation, whereby participants become so used to viewing the stimuli they did not provide much of a distraction, even to participants with low-trait psychopathy. Thirdly, Carolan et al.’s study may have been underpowered to detect psychopathy-related behavioral effects and so we recruited three times as many participants.
We hypothesized that (1) participants scoring high on the PPI-R FD factor would be less distracted by empathy-eliciting images than those with low FD traits, due to the fact that this factor is associated with low anxiety and blunted reactions to emotional stimuli (Lilienfeld et al.,
2012). Therefore, we predicted that high PPI-R FD scores would be associated with higher
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 26 accuracy and shorter reaction times on the eStroop task than participants with low FD scores. (2)
Similarly, because the CH factor of the PPI-R is associated with a lack of remorse or empathy
(Benning et al., 2005), we expected that participants scoring high on the PPI-R CH factor would be less distracted by the empathy-eliciting pictures due to their difficulty in identifying with them. Therefore, these participants would complete the task with shorter reaction times and greater accuracy than those with CH scores. (3) Participants scoring high on affective empathy
(IRI Empathic Concern scores) would have a reduced ability to ignore the empathy pictures, resulting in longer reaction times and poorer accuracy in the eStroop task than participants with low empathic concern scores. (4) Participants scoring high in Boldness and Meanness traits on the TriPM would have an enhanced ability to ignore emotional distractors, leading to shorter reaction times and greater accuracy. This was based on evidence that TriPM Meanness is associated with a lack of empathy, and TriPM Boldness is associated with low emotionality
(Patrick et al., 2009). (5) Highly anxious participants, assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (STAI), would have a reduced ability to ignore emotional distractors, which would result in longer reaction times and poorer accuracy. This was based on previous research showing that individuals diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are prone to a bias in attention towards threat stimuli (Martin, Williams, & Clark, 1991; Bradley, Mogg, White,
Groom, & De Bono, 1999). (6) Participants with high empathy and arousal ratings towards the empathy-eliciting pictures would have slower reaction times and lower accuracy because they would need to allocate greater effort towards the assigned task.
Methods Pilot Stimulus Norming Study Participants. Fifty participants (19 to 72 years old) were recruited via MTurk for a pilot norming study to ensure that the stimuli used in the eStroop study would be likely to elicit high
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 27 levels of empathy and arousal. All participants resided in the United States. Participants rated the level of empathy and arousal that they felt for each of the 180 photos shown using a Qualtrics
Survey on two separate scales ranging from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high). All photos were chosen for their potential to elicit feelings of empathy, some were from the International
Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2008), and others were downloaded from the Internet. There were equal numbers of negative, neutral, or positive pictures and they all featured people or animals. Participants were compensated $3 for their participation. We used the participant ratings to select 75 photos (25 positive, 25 negative, and 25 neutral). Although we tried to match the pictures based on both empathy and arousal ratings, negative pictures were rated as more empathy-eliciting than neutral and positive pictures. Therefore, we were only able to balance negative and positive pictures based on arousal. Pilot participants rated neutral pictures (M = 2.34, SD = .32) as significantly less empathy-inducing than negative (M = 4.60,
SD = .29), t (48) = 26.00, p < .001, and positive pictures (M = 3.81, SD = .38), t (48) = 14.60, p <
.001. Participants also rated negative pictures as more empathy-inducing than positive ones, t
(48) = -8.24, p < .001. Participants rated neutral pictures (M = 1.70, SD = .10) as significantly less arousing than negative (M = 3.78, SD = .27), t (48) = 36.47, p < .001, and positive pictures
(M = 3.78, SD = .22), t (48) = 42.83, p < .001. There were no significant differences between arousal ratings for negative and positive pictures, t (48) = -.10, p = .921. Note that Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of 0.0167 apply for each test. eStroop Task Participants
A total of 116 (36 male, 80 female) undergraduate students from John Jay College of
Criminal Justice participated in the main part of the study. However, three were excluded because of high scores (> 45) on the Inconsistent Responding scale of the PPI-R, thus the final
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 28 sample consisted on 113 participants (36 male and 77 female). They were recruited through the
Psychology department Research Experience Program, and received partial course credit for their participation. Participants ranged from 18 to 46 years old (M = 20. 24, SD = 3.99). Within this sample, 42.48% identified as Hispanic, 52.21% identified as Not Hispanic, and 5.31% declined to report their ethnicity. When questioned about their race, 30.97% identified as
White/Caucasian/European-American, 19.47% identified as Black/African-American, 15.93% identified as Asian/Southeast Asian, 1.77% identified as American Indian/Alaskan Native,
3.54% identified as Mixed Race, 13.27% identified as Other, and 15.04 % declined to self- identify.
Procedure and Measures
After signing up using the online (SONA) system, participants came into the Event- related Potential lab at John Jay College to complete the study. After they gave their informed consent, they then filled out a series of personality measures and completed the eStroop and ratings task.
Demographic survey. A demographic form consisted of 12 questions about age, race, and ethnicity, as well as current occupational status.
Psychopathic Personality Inventory- Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).
The PPI-R is a self-report measure to assess global psychopathy (total scores), as well as specific traits of psychopathy. The PPI-R consists of 154-items used to generate scores on the following eight subscales: Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME), Social Influence (SOI), Carefree
Nonplanfulness (CN), Fearlessness (F), Blame Externalization (BE), Rebellious Nonconformity
(RN), Stress Immunity (STI) and Coldheartedness (CH) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). PPI-R subscale scores are broken down into two high-order factor scores: FD (consisting of the Social
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 29
Potency, Stress Immunity, and Fearlessness subscales) and SCI (consisting of the Carefree
Nonplanfulness, Impulsive Nonconformity, Machiavellian Egocentricity, and Blame
Externalization subscales). CH does not load onto either of these higher-order factors (Lilienfeld
& Widows, 2005). The PPI-R items consist of statements about different attitudes and behaviors, and participants evaluate to what extent the statement is true of them. Participants respond using a 4-point Likert scale (“True”, “Mostly True”, “Mostly False”, and “False”). This measure is designed for participants from 18 to 86 years of age, and can be completed within 15 to 25 minutes (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). According to the authors, the PPI-R has been shown to have high internal consistency; Cronbach’s alpha within the general population = 0.92 for Total Scores, from α = 0.78 to 0.87 for the subscales (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).
Furthermore, the PPI-R has been shown to have high test-retest reliability, with alphas ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 throughout a 19-day retest period (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The PPI-R also has good construct validity; total scores are consistent with other psychopathy measures in both community and offender samples, such as the TriPM (Stanley, Wygant, & Sellbom, 2012).
Our data also indicated good internal consistency for STI (α = .872), SOI (α = .863), and F (α =
.837) subscales, and the Fearless Dominance factor had excellent internal consistency (α = .901).
Cronbach’s α for ME (α = .847), BE (α = .778), CH (α = .770), and RN (α = .707) all indicated good internal consistency, as did the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor (α = .890). The
Coldheartedness subscale also had good internal consistency (α = .877), as did the PPI-R Total
Score (α = .898).
The PPI-R also includes three scales to assess validity: Deviant Responding (DR),
Virtuous Responding (VR), and Inconsistent Responding (IR). The Deviant Responding scale detects “faking bad” traits, while the Virtuous Responding scale detects “faking good” traits that
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 30 indicate that the participant is trying to be socially conforming (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The
Inconsistent Responding scale consists of 40 items, which detects contradictory or illogical answers (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). In this study, three participants were excluded because they had scores of above 45 on the Inconsistent Responding (IR) scale of the PPI-R.
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1983). The IRI consists of 28 items designed to measure empathy and respondents answer statements based on how well each statement applies to their own life. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale from A through E, where A is ‘Does not describe me very well’ and E is ‘Describes me very well’ (Davis, 1983).
There are four seven-item subscales: “Perspective Taking” (PT), e.g., “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective”, “Empathetic
Concern” (EC), e.g., “Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal”,
“Personal Distress” (PD), e.g., “I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very emotional situation”, and “Fantasy Scale” (FS) e.g., “I am usually objective when I watch a movie or play, and I don't often get completely caught up in it.” In our study, Cronbach’s αs indicated good internal consistency for IRI Empathic Concern (α = .806), IRI Perspective Taking
(α = .716), and IRI Personal Distress (α = .712) scales. The Fantasy Scale was not used in this study.
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, &
Jacobs, 1983). The STAI is a self-report measure designed to measure trait and state anxiety and to distinguish anxiety from depressive symptoms (Spielberger et al., 1983). There are 20 items that evaluate state anxiety, as well as 20 items that evaluate trait anxiety. The items measuring state anxiety include questions like, “I am tense” and “I feel secure”. The items measuring trait anxiety include, “I worry too much over something that really doesn’t matter”. A 4-point Likert
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 31 scale is used to rate the items, ranging from “Almost Never” to “Almost Always”. Higher scores in the STAI are indicative of greater anxiety. Spielberger et al. (1983) indicated that internal consistency for the scale ranged from .86 to .95. In addition, test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .65 to .75 within a two month interval (Spielberger et al., 1983). The STAI is suitable for individuals who have a minimum sixth-grade reading level (Spielberger et al., 1983).
Only STAI-Trait items were used for this study, but Cronbach’s α indicated excellent internal consistency (α = .967).
The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) (Patrick, 2010). The TriPM is designated for use in community samples, and is based on the Triarchic model of psychopathy, which characterizes psychopathy based on three distinct phenotypic components: Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition (Patrick et al., 2009). It consists of 58-items answered on a 4-point Likert scale
(“True”, “Somewhat True”, “Somewhat False”, and “False”). Boldness is reflective of fearlessness, social dominance, and low stress reactivity (Blagov, Patrick, Oost, Goodman, &
Pugh, 2016; Patrick et al., 2009), and has also been found to be closely correlated to PPI-R
Fearless Dominance (Bennington et al., 2003; Blagov et al., 2016). Disinhibition is reflective of the inability to constrain behavior, impulsivity, irresponsibility, anger outbursts, and poor planning (Blagov et al., 2016). Meanness refers to emotional callousness, and unempathetic or cruel ways in relating to others (Blagov et al., 2016). The items ask questions such as, “I can get over things that would traumatize others” (Boldness), “I often act on immediate needs”
(Disinhibition), and “I enjoy pushing people around sometimes” (Meanness; Patrick, 2010). The
TriPM has been shown to have good internal consistency with estimates of α = .80–.87, (Blagov et al., 2016). Cronbach’s αs for this study also indicated good internal consistency for TriPM
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 32
Disinhibition (α = .887), and excellent internal consistency for TriPM Meanness (α = .900),
TriPM Boldness (α = .951), and TriPM Total Score (α = .958).
Emotional(e) Stroop Paradigm Stimuli
The eStroop task has been popularly used to evaluate emotional biases within clinical and healthy populations (Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996; Hsieh & Sharma, 2019). In this study, the eStroop stimuli consisted of 25 negative, neutral, and positive empathy-eliciting pictures from the pilot study (described above). For the eStroop paradigm, participants sat 55 cm from the computer screen in a quiet, dark room. Pictures were presented on the computer screen using E-prime 2.0 software, a stimulus presentation program from Psychology Software Tools
(PST). A 1 cm x 1 cm colored square was superimposed on each picture. The squares were either red, blue, green, or yellow. The stimuli were presented in randomized order and each picture was shown on the screen for 500 ms. During the interstimulus interval (1,500 ms-2,000 ms), participants viewed a 1 cm x 1 cm fixation cross on the center of a black screen. The participants were instructed to ignore the background pictures, and identify the target color as fast and accurately as possible by pressing one of colored keys on the keyboard. The speed and accuracy of responses were recorded using E-prime 2.0.
Empathy and Arousal Ratings
Upon completing the eStroop task, participants were shown all of the pictures again using
E-Prime and we asked to rate the level of empathy and arousal they felt towards each picture, each answer was given on a scale from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high). Participants used the computer keyboard to indicate their answer.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 33
Data Analysis
Multiple repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed using SPSS
(version 25); the first of these simply used a within-subjects factor of Picture Type (negative, neutral, and positive) for each of the dependent variables: reaction time, accuracy, empathy and arousal ratings. Then the ANOVAs were run again, each with a different Personality measure entered as a covariate thus serving as a continuous between-subjects’ factor. Where appropriate we examined the relationship between personality traits and the dependent variable by looking at simple bivariate correlations. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were used when appropriate and we have reported corrected p values but for ease of interpretation, we have left the degrees of freedom uncorrected.
Results The means, standard deviations, and ranges for each of the personality measures are reported in Table 1.
Correlations Between Personality Measures
As shown in Table 2, there were multiple statistically significant correlations between the personality measures. PPI-R FD scores were positively correlated with PPI-R CH, PPI-R Total,
TriPM Boldness (strongest correlation), TriPM Meanness, and TriPM Total scores, and negatively correlated with STAI Trait and IRI PD scores. PPI-R SCI scores were positively correlated with PPI-R CH, Total PPI-R (strongest correlation), TriPM Meanness, TriPM
Disinhibition, TriPM Total, STAI Trait, IRI PD scores, and negatively correlated with IRI PT scores. PPI-R CH scores were positively correlated with Total PPI-R, TriPM Meanness and
TriPM Total Psychopathy scores, and negatively correlated with IRI PT and IRI EC (strongest correlation) scores. Total PPI-R Scores were also positively correlated with TriPM Boldness,
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 34
TriPM Meanness (strongest correlation), TriPM Disinhibition and TriPM Total Psychopathy scores, and negatively correlated with IRI PT and IRI EC scores.
In addition to the relationships described above, TriPM Boldness had a negative correlation with TriPM Disinhibition, STAI Trait, and IRI PD scores, and had a positive correlation with TriPM Total Psychopathy scores. TriPM Meanness had a positive correlation with TriPM Disinhibition and TriPM Total scores and a negative correlation with IRI PT, IRI EC and IRI PD scores. Also, TriPM Disinhibition had a positive correlation with TriPM Total, STAI
Trait, and IRI PD scores, and a negative correlation with IRI PT scores. STAI Trait scores also had a positive correlation with IRI Personal Distress and a negative relationship with IRI PT. IRI
EC also had a positive correlation with IRI PT and IRI PD scores.
Reaction Time (RT)
The repeated measures ANOVA (without any personality measures as between-subjects variables) showed a main effect of Picture Type on RT that approached significance, F (2, 224)
2 = 3.02, p = .054, ղp = 0.03. As expected, the mean RTs for empathy-inducing (positive and negative) pictures were longer than for neutral pictures (see Table 3 for means and standard deviations). However, only the RTs to the negative pictures were statistically significantly slower
2 than for the neutral pictures, F (1, 112) = 7.858, p = .018, ղp = .066.
Accuracy
The repeated measures ANOVA (without any personality measures as between-subjects
2 variables) showed no main effect of Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 224) = 1.696, p = .187, ղp =
.015.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 35
Arousal Ratings
The repeated measures ANOVA (without any personality measures as between-subjects variables) showed a main effect of Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 224) = 86.01, p < .01,
2 ղp = .434. As seen in Table 3, the mean arousal ratings for positive pictures were significantly
2 greater than both negative pictures, F (1, 112) = 5.984, p = .047, ղp = .051, and neutral pictures,
2 F (1, 112) = 142.287, p < .001, ղp = .560. Negative pictures were also rated more arousing than
2 neutral pictures, F (1, 112) = 100.896, p < .001, ղp = .474.
Empathy Ratings
The repeated measures ANOVA (without any personality measures as between-subjects variables) showed a main effect of Picture Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 224) = 271.00, p <
2 .01, ղp = .708. The mean empathy ratings for negative pictures were significantly greater than
2 for positive, F (1, 112) = 28.457, p < .001, ղp = .203 and neutral pictures, F (1, 112) = 377.325,
2 p < .001, ղp = .771. Empathy ratings for positive pictures were also significantly higher than for
2 neutral pictures, F (1, 112) = 280.554, p < .001, ղp = .715.
The subsequent results include various personality measures as covariates in the
ANOVAs. The mean values are the same as reported in Table 3, but the standard errors of the means (SEMs) are reported in Table 4 (RT), Table 5 (Accuracy), Table 6 (Arousal Ratings) and
Table 7 (Empathy).
PPI-R FD and RT
When PPI-R Fearless Dominance (FD) was included as a covariate in the ANOVA, there
2 was a main effect of Picture Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 3.738, p = .028, ղp = .033. Negative
2 pictures had a significantly longer RTs than neutral pictures, F (1, 112) = 7.858, p = .017, ղp =
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 36
.066, but no other comparisons were significant. There was no main effect of PPI-R FD, F (1,
2 111) = 0.332, p = .566, ղp = .003, but there was a significant interaction between PPI-R FD and
2 Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 4.251, p = .017, ղp = .037. To better understand this interaction, we decided to use the neutral RT as a baseline to create a new variable (RT Difference) by subtracting the RT for neutral pictures from the RT for the positive and the negative pictures. We then performed a repeated measures ANOVA with RT Difference (positive, negative) as the within-subjects variable and FD as the covariate. We confirmed the main effect of Picture Type,
2 F (1, 111) = 7.821, p = .006, ղp = .066, whereby the RT difference for negative pictures (M =
13. 32, SD = 50. 50) was greater than for positive pictures (M = 8. 48, SD = 62. 31). We also
2 confirmed the interaction between Picture Type and PPI-R FD, F (1, 111) = 7.821, p = .006, ղp
= .066. We plotted RT difference scores against PPI-R FD (see Figure 1), and although the
Pearson’s correlations were not significant for positive RT difference scores, r (113) = -.149, p =
.116, or negative RT difference scores, r (113) = .129, p = .174. The interaction was due to the fact that the relationship between the RT difference and PPI-R FD was negative for positive pictures (as expected) and positive for negative pictures (which was opposite to what we had predicted).
PPI-R FD and Accuracy
When PPI-R FD was included in the ANOVA, there was still no main effect of Picture
2 Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.003, p = .997, ղp < .001. There was also no main effect of PPI-
2 R FD, F (1, 111) = 1.30, p = .257, ղp = .012, and no significant interaction between Picture
2 Type and PPI-R FD, F (2, 222) = 0.094, p = .903, ղp = .001.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 37
PPI-R FD and Arousal Ratings
When PPI-R FD was included in the ANOVA, there was still a significant main effect of
2 Picture Type on arousal, F (2, 222) = 6.155, p = .003, ղp = .053. The mean arousal ratings for
2 positive pictures were higher than negative, F (1, 111) = 3.85, p = .049, ղp = .050, and neutral
2 pictures, F (1, 111) = 147.897, p < .001, ղp = .670. The mean ratings for negative pictures were
2 higher than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 99.147, p < .001, ղp = .576. There was no main effect
2 of PPI-R FD, F (1, 111) = 0.314, p = .576, ղp = .003, and no significant interaction between
2 PPI-R FD and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.069, p = .932, ղp = .001.
PPI-R FD and Empathy Ratings
When PPI-R FD was included in the ANOVA, there was still a main effect of Picture
2 Type on Empathy Ratings, F (2, 222) = 24.178, p < .001, ղp = .179. Mean empathy ratings for
2 negative pictures were higher than positive, F (1, 111) = 14.142, p < .001, ղp = .162, and neutral
2 pictures, F (1, 111) = 236.357, p < .001, ղp = .764. Participants also rated positive pictures
2 higher on the empathy scale than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 237.007, p < .001, ղp = .765.
2 There was no main effect of PPI-R FD, F (1, 111) = 2.347, p = .128, ղp = .021, and no
2 significant interaction between PPI-R FD and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 1.242, p = .287, ղp =
.011.
PPI-R SCI and RT
When PPI-R SCI was included as a covariate in the ANOVA, the main effect of Picture
2 = Type on RT approached significance, F (2, 222) = 2.82, p = .066, ղp .025. The average RT for
2 negative pictures was higher than for neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 4.380, p = .015, ղp = .057.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 38
No other comparisons were significant, all ps > .38. There was no main effect of PPI-R SCI, F
2 (1, 111) = 1.31, p = .254, ղp = .012, and no significant interaction between PPI-R SCI and
2 Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 1.811, p = .169, ղp = .016.
PPI-R SCI and Accuracy
When PPI-R SCI was included as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 = Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.559, p = .565, ղp .005. There was no main effect of
2 PPI-R SCI, F (1, 111) = 2.17, p = .143, ղp = .019, and no significant interaction between PPI-R
2 SCI and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.249, p = .770, ղp = .002.
PPI-R SCI and Arousal Ratings
When PPI-R SCI was included as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 1.035, p = .357, ղp = .009. There was no main
2 effect of PPI-R SCI on arousal ratings, F (1, 111) = 0.746, p = .390. ղp = .007, and there was no
2 significant interaction between PPI-R SCI and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.974, p = .379, ղp =
.009.
PPI-R SCI and Empathy Ratings
When PPI-R SCI was included as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was a main effect of
2 Picture Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 222) = 16.076, p < .001, ղp = .127. The mean empathy ratings for negative pictures were significantly greater than for positive, F (1, 111) = 20.275, p <
2 2 .001, ղp = .217, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 240.095, p < .001, ղp = .767. Empathy ratings for positive pictures were also significantly higher than for neutral pictures, F (1, 111) =
2 199.271, p < .001, ղp = .732. There was no main effect of PPI-R SCI, F (1, 111) = 1.539, p =
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 39
2 = .217, ղp .014, and no significant interaction between PPI-R SCI and Picture Type, F (2, 222) =
2 0.382, p = .651, ղp = .003.
PPI-R CH and RT
When PPI-R CH was included as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 . Picture Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 0.799, p = .444, ղp = 007. There was no main effect of PPI-R
2 CH, F (1, 111) = 2.239, p = .137, ղp = .020, and no significant interaction between PPI-R CH
2 and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.235, p = .778, ղp = .002.
PPI-R CH and Accuracy
When PPI-R CH was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.093, p = .903, ղp = .001. There was no main effect of
2 PPI-R CH, F (1, 111) = 1.295, p = .257, ղp = .012, and no significant interaction between PPI-R
2 CH and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.174, p = .831, ղp = .002.
PPI-R CH and Arousal Ratings
When PPI-R CH was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was a main effect of
2 Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 14.941, p < .001, ղp = .119. The average arousal
2 ratings for positive pictures were higher than negative, F (1, 111) = 3.956, p = .048, ղp = .053,
2 and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 77.853, p < .001, ղp = .527. Participants also rated negative
2 pictures higher on the arousal scale than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 51.569, p < .001, ղp =
2 .424. There was no main effect of PPI-R CH, F (1, 111) = 2.887, p = .092, ղp = .025, and no
2 significant interaction between PPI-R CH and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 2.126, p = .122, ղp =
.019.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 40
PPI-R CH and Empathy Ratings
When PPI-R CH was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, the main effect of Picture
2 Type on empathy ratings was significant, F (2, 222) = 86.032, p < .001, ղp = .437. The average empathy ratings for negative pictures were higher than positive, F (1, 111) = 13.591, p < .001,
2 2 ղp = .163, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 203.795, p < .001, ղp = .744. Participants also rated positive pictures higher on the empathy scale than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 139.285, p <
2 2 .001, ղp = .666. There was a main effect of PPI-R CH, F (1, 111) = 15.632, p < .001, ղp = .123, and a significant interaction between PPI-R CH and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 22.170, p < .001,
2 ղp = .166. There was a negative correlation between PPI-R Coldheartedness T Scores and empathy ratings for both positive and negative pictures. This correlation was stronger for negative, r (113) = -.508, p < .001, than positive pictures, r (113) = -.356, p < .001. There was no significant correlation for neutral pictures, r (113) = -0.014, p = .881 (see Figure 2).
Total PPI-R and RT
When the Total PPI-R Score was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was no main
2 effect of Picture Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 1.834, p = .165, ղp = .016. There was no main effect
2 of Total PPI-R Score, F (1, 111) = 1.823, p = .180, ղp = .016, and no significant interaction
2 between the Total PPI-R Score and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 1.238, p = .291, ղp = .011.
Total PPI-R and Accuracy
When the Total PPI-R Score was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was no main
2 effect of Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.183, p = .823, ղp = .002. There was no main
2 effect of Total PPI-R Score, F (1, 111) = 0.005, p = .941, ղp < .001, and no significant
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 41
2 interaction between the Total PPI-R Score and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.016, p = .982, ղp <
.001.
Total PPI-R and Arousal Ratings
When the Total PPI-R Score was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was a main
2 effect of Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 4.129, p = .018, ղp = .036. The average
2 arousal ratings for positive pictures were higher than negative, F (1, 111) = 1.730, p = .049, ղp =
2 .024, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 75.453, p < .001, ղp = .522. The average arousal ratings
2 for negative pictures were higher than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 64.307, p < .001, ղp = .482.
2 There was no main effect of Total PPI-R Score, F (1, 111) = 0.009, p = .925, ղp < .00, and no significant interaction between the Total PPI-R Score and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.037, p =
2 .963, ղp < .001.
Total PPI-R and Empathy Ratings
When the Total PPI-R Score was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was a main
2 effect of Picture Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 222) = 33.123, p < .001, ղp = .230. The average empathy ratings were higher for negative pictures than positive, F (1, 111) = 16.769, p < .001,
2 2 ղp = .196, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 248.385, p < .001, ղp = .783. The average empathy
2 ratings for positive pictures were higher than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 213.249, p < .001, ղp
2 = .756. There was a main effect of Total PPI-R Score, F (1, 111) = 5.991, p = .016, ղp = .051, and a significant interaction between Total PPI-R Score and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 3.518, p
2 = .038, ղp = .031. There was a significant negative correlation between Total PPI-R scores and empathy ratings for both positive and negative pictures. As seen in Figure 3, the correlation was
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 42 stronger for negative pictures, r (113) = -.246, p = .009, than positive pictures, r (113) = -.249, p
= .008. There was no significant correlation for neutral pictures, r (113) = -.074, p = .434.
IRI EC and RT
When IRI EC was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 0.373, p = .676, ղp = .003. There was a main effect of IRI EC,
2 F (1, 111) = 5.535, p = .020, ղp = .047, but no significant interaction between IRI EC and
2 Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 1.040, p = .352, ղp = .009. As can be seen in Figure 4, there was a positive correlation between RT and IRI EC for positive, r (113) = .212, p = .024, negative, r
(113) = .230, p = .014, and neutral pictures, r (113) =.204, p = .031. Thus, higher IRI EC scores were accompanied by higher RTs, regardless of the picture type.
IRI EC and Accuracy
When IRI EC was added as a covariate in the ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.681, p = .501, ղp = .006. There was no main effect of
2 IRI EC, F (1, 111) = 0.233, p = .630, ղp = .002, and no significant interaction between IRI EC
2 and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.742, p = .472, ղp = .007.
IRI EC and Arousal Ratings
When IRI EC was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of Picture
2 Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 0.422, p = .656, ղp = .004. There was a main effect of IRI
2 EC, F (1, 111) = 6.602, p = .012, ղp = .056, and a significant interaction between IRI EC and
2 Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 3.406, p = .035, ղp = .030. As shown in Figure 5, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between arousal ratings and IRI EC, and this correlation was stronger for positive pictures, r (113) = .255, p = .006, than negative pictures, r
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 43
(113) = .217, p = .021. There was no significant correlation for neutral pictures, r (113) = .129, p
= .174.
IRI EC and Empathy Ratings
When IRI EC was added as a covariate, there was no main effect of Picture Type on
2 empathy ratings, F (2, 222) = 0.205, p = .795, ղp = .002. There was a main effect of IRI EC, F
2 (1, 111) = 45.259, p < .001, ղp = .290, and a significant interaction between IRI EC and Picture
2 Type, F (2, 222) = 21.293, p < .001, ղp = .161. As shown in Figure 6, there was a significant positive correlation between empathy ratings and IRI EC, and this correlation was stronger for negative pictures, r (113) = .674, p <.001, than positive, r (113) = .492, p < .01, or neutral pictures, r (113) = .198, p = .035.
IRI PT and RT
When IRI PT was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of Picture
2 Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 1.167, p = .311, ղp = .010. There was no main effect of IRI PT, F (1,
2 111) = 0.494, p = .484, ղp = .004, and no significant interaction between IRI PT and Picture
2 Type, F (2, 222) = 1.328, p = .267, ղp = .012.
IRI PT and Accuracy
When IRI PT was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of Picture
2 Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.560, p = .564, ղp = .005. There was no main effect of IRI PT,
2 F (1, 111) = 0.049, p = .825, ղp < .001, and no significant interaction between IRI PT and
2 Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 1.199, p = .302, ղp = .011.
IRI PT and Arousal Ratings
When IRI PT was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of
2 Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 5.795, p = .004, ղp = .050. The average arousal
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 44
2 ratings for positive pictures were greater than negative, F (1, 111) = 1.010, p = .048, ղp = .011,
2 and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 93.641, p < .001, ղp = .507. The average arousal ratings were
2 greater for negative than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 84.613, p < .001, ղp = .482. There was no
2 main effect of IRI PT, F (1, 111) = 0.043, p = .836, ղp < .001, and no significant interaction
2 between IRI PT and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.102, p = .902, ղp = .001.
IRI PT and Empathy Ratings
When IRI PT was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of
2 Picture Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 222) = 7.857, p = .001, ղp = .066. The average empathy
2 ratings for negative pictures were greater than positive, F (1, 111) = 15.090, p < .001, ղp = .142,
2 and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 218.108, p < .001, ղp = .706. The average empathy ratings
2 were greater for positive pictures than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 156.985, p < .001, ղp = .633.
2 There was no main effect of IRI PT, F (1, 111) = 0.502, p = .480, ղp = .005, and no significant
2 interaction between IRI PT and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 1.680, p = .193, ղp = .015.
IRI PD and RT
When IRI PD was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of Picture
2 Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 0.623, p = .528, ղp = .006. There was no main effect of IRI PD, F (1,
2 111) = 1.400, p = .239, ղp = .012, and no significant interaction between IRI PD and Picture
2 Type, F (2, 222) = 0.494, p = .600, ղp = .004.
IRI PD and Accuracy
When IRI PD was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of Picture
2 Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 1.302, p = .273, ղp = .012. There was no main effect of IRI PD
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 45
2 on accuracy, F (1, 111) = 0.350, p = .555, ղp = .003, and no significant interaction between IRI
2 PD and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.533, p = .579, ղp = .005.
IRI PD and Arousal Ratings
When IRI PD was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of
2 Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 3.600, p = .029, ղp = .031. The average arousal
2 ratings for positive pictures were greater than negative, F (1, 111) = 6.591, p = .048, ղp = .068,
2 and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 70.210, p < .001, ղp = .438, and the average arousal ratings for
2 negative pictures were greater than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 38.387, p < .001, ղp = .299.
2 There was no main effect of IRI PD, F (1, 111) = 2.798, p = .097, ղp = .025, and the interaction between IRI PD and Picture Type approached statistical significance, F (2, 222) = 2.672, p =
2 .072, ղp = .024
IRI PD and Empathy Ratings
When IRI PD was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect of Picture
2 Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 222) = 13.843, p < .001, ղp = .111. The average empathy ratings
2 for negative pictures were greater than positive, F (1, 111) = 6.832, p < .001, ղp = .071, and
2 neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 228.085, p < .001, ղp = .717, and the average empathy ratings for
2 positive pictures were greater than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 160.869, p < .001, ղp = .641.
2 There was a main effect of IRI PD, F (1, 111) = 8.243, p = .005, ղp = .069, and a significant
2 interaction between IRI PD and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 8.532, p = .001, ղp = .071. There was a significant positive correlation between IRI PD and empathy ratings for positive, r (113) =
.215, p = .022, and negative pictures, r (113) = .392, p < .001. This relationship was stronger for
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 46 negative pictures. There was no significant correlation for neutral pictures, r (113) = .059, p =
.534 (see Figure 7).
TriPM Meanness and RT
When TriPM Meanness was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 2.057, p = .134, ղp = .018. The main effect of TriPM
2 Meanness approached significance, F (1, 111) = 3.240, p = .075, ղp = .028, but there was no significant interaction between TriPM Meanness and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.427, p = .640,
2 ղp = .004.
TriPM Meanness and Accuracy
When TriPM Meanness was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.556, p = .567, ղp = .005. There was no main effect of
2 TriPM Meanness, F (1, 111) = 0.208, p = .649, ղp = .002, and no significant interaction between
2 TriPM Meanness and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.017, p = .980, ղp < .001.
TriPM Meanness and Arousal Ratings
When TriPM Meanness was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect of
2 Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 29.480, p < .001, ղp = .210. The average for
2 arousal ratings were greater for positive pictures than negative, F (1, 111) = 10.944, p = .049, ղp
2 = .119, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 73.071, p < .001, ղp = .474. The average arousal ratings for negative pictures were also higher than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 35.010, p < .001,
2 2 ղp = .302. There was no main effect of TriPM Meanness, F (1, 111) = 1.811, p = .181, ղp =
.016, and no significant interaction between TriPM Meanness and Picture Type, F (2, 222) =
2 0.564, p = .569, ղp = .005.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 47
TriPM Meanness and Empathy Ratings
When TriPM Meanness was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect of
2 Picture Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 222) = 149.597, p < .001, ղp = .574. The average
2 empathy ratings for negative pictures were greater than positive, F (1, 111) = 5.184, p < .001, ղp
2 = .060, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 177.600, p <.02, ղp = .687. The average empathy
2 ratings for positive pictures were greater than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 131.809, p < .001, ղp
= .619. There was a significant main effect of TriPM Meanness, F (1, 111) = 19.228, p < .001,
2 ղp = .148, and a significant interaction between TriPM Meanness and Picture Type, F (2, 222) =
2 14.449, p < .001, ղp = .115.
There was a negative correlation between TriPM Meanness and empathy ratings for positive, r (113) = -.343, p < .001, and negative pictures, r (113) = -.521, p < .001. There was no significant correlation for neutral pictures, r (113) = -.107, p = .258 (see Figure 8).
TriPM Boldness and RT
When TriPM Boldness was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on RT, F (2, 220) = 2.154, p = .122, ղp = .019. The main effect of TriPM Boldness
2 approached was not significant, F (1, 110) = .766, p = .383, ղp = .007. The interaction between
2 TriPM Boldness and Picture Type approached significance, F (2, 220) = 2.715, p = .072, ղp =
.024.
TriPM Boldness and Accuracy
When TriPM Boldness was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 220) = 0.106, p = .892, ղp = .001. There was no main effect of
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 48
2 TriPM Boldness, F (1, 110) = 2.632, p = .127, ղp = .021, and no significant interaction between
2 TriPM Boldness and Picture Type, F (2, 220) = 0.004, p = .995, ղp < .001.
TriPM Boldness and Arousal Ratings
When TriPM Boldness was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect of
2 Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 220) = 9.711, p < .001, ղp = .081. The arousal ratings for
2 positive pictures were greater than negative, F (1, 110) = 5.392, p = .049, ղp = .065, and neutral
2 pictures, F (1, 110) = 121.263, p < .001, ղp = .612. The arousal ratings for negative pictures
2 were greater than neutral pictures, F (1, 110) = 80.684, p < .001, ղp = .512. There was no main
2 effect of TriPM Boldness, F (1, 110) = 0.058, p = .811, ղp = .001, and no significant interaction
2 between TriPM Boldness and Picture Type, F (2, 220) = 0.150, p = .860, ղp = .001.
TriPM Boldness and Empathy Ratings
When TriPM Boldness was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect of
2 Picture Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 220) = 24.442, p < .001, ղp = .182. The average empathy
2 ratings for negative pictures were greater than positive, F (1, 110) = 20.063, p < .001, ղp = .207,
2 and neutral pictures, F (1, 110) = 290.019, p < .001, ղp = .790. The average empathy ratings for
2 positive pictures were greater than neutral pictures, F (1, 110) = 225.555, p < .001, ղp = .746.
2 There was no main effect of TriPM Boldness, F (1, 110) = 0.037, p = .848, ղp < .001, and no significant interaction between TriPM Boldness and Picture Type, F (2, 220) = 0.023, p = .965,
2 ղp < .001.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 49
TriPM Disinhibition and RT
When TriPM Disinhibition was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main
2 effect of Picture Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 1.785, p = .172, ղp = .016. There was no main effect
2 of TriPM Disinhibition, F (1, 111) = 0.044, p = .833, ղp < .001, and no significant interaction
2 between TriPM Disinhibition and Picture Type F (2, 222) = 0.863, p = .418, ղp = .008.
TriPM Disinhibition and Accuracy
When TriPM Disinhibition was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main
2 effect of Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.808, p = .442, ղp = .007. The main effect of
2 TriPM Disinhibition approached significance, F (1, 111) = 3.312, p = .071, ղp = .029, and no significant interaction between TriPM Disinhibition and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.154, p =
2 .848, ղp = .001.
TriPM Disinhibition and Arousal Ratings
When TriPM Disinhibition was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect
2 of Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 6.991, p < .001, ղp = .059. The average arousal
2 ratings for positive pictures were higher than negative, F (1, 111) = 3.888, p = .047, ղp = .046,
2 and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 105.634, p < .001, ղp = .566. The average arousal ratings for
2 negative pictures were higher than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 75.139, p < .001, ղp = .481.
2 There was no main effect of TriPM Disinhibition, F (1, 111) = 0.288, p = .592, ղp = .003, and no significant interaction between TriPM Disinhibition and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 2.296, p =
2 .103, ղp = .020.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 50
TriPM Disinhibition and Empathy Ratings
When TriPM Disinhibition was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect
2 of Picture Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 222) = 49.847, p < .001, ղp = .310. The average
2 empathy rating for negative pictures were greater than positive, F (1, 111) = 12.552, p < .001, ղp
2 = .134, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 229.454, p < .001, ղp = .739. The average empathy
2 rating for positive pictures were higher than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 172.860, p < .001, ղp
2 = .681. There was no main effect of TriPM Disinhibition, F (1, 111) = 0.896, p = .346, ղp =
.008, and no significant interaction between TriPM Disinhibition and Picture Type, F (2, 222) =
2 0.116, p = .860, ղp = .001.
TriPM Total and RT
When TriPM Total Psychopathy Score was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was
2 no main effect of Picture Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 1.017, p = .360, ղp = .009. There was no
2 main effect of TriPM Total, F (1, 111) = 2.982, p = .087, ղp = .026, and no significant
2 interaction between TriPM Total and Picture Type F (2, 222) = 0.549, p = .568, ղp = .005.
TriPM Total and Accuracy
When TriPM Total Psychopathy Score was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was
2 no main effect of Picture Type on accuracy, F (2, 222) = 0.348, p = .697, ղp = .003. There was
2 no main effect of TriPM Total, F (1, 111) = 0.099, p = .754, ղp = .001, and no significant interaction between TriPM Total Psychopathy Score and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.078, p =
2 .918, ղp = .001.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 51
TriPM Total and Arousal Ratings
When TriPM Total Psychopathy Score was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a
2 main effect of Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 4.588, p = .011, ղp = .040. The average arousal ratings for positive pictures were greater than negative, F (1, 111) = 5.560, p =
2 2 .048, ղp = .080, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 83.012, p < .001, ղp = .565. The average arousal ratings for negative pictures were greater than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 47.708, p <
2 2 .001, ղp = .427. There was no main effect of TriPM Total, F (1, 111) = 0.004, p = .947, ղp <
.001, and no significant interaction between TriPM Total and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.091, p
2 = .912, ղp = .001.
TriPM Total and Empathy Ratings
When TriPM Total was added as a covariate in ANOVA, the main effect of Picture Type
2 on empathy ratings was significant, F (2, 222) = 40.542, p < .001, ղp = .268. The average mean for empathy ratings for negative pictures were greater than positive, F (1, 111) = 17.155, p <
2 2 .001, ղp = .211, and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 246.019, p < .001, ղp = .794. The average mean for empathy ratings were higher for positive pictures than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) =
2 160.155, p < .001, ղp = .714. There was a main effect of TriPM Total Psychopathy Score, F (1,
2 111) = 7.416, p = .008, ղp = .063 and a significant interaction between TriPM Total and Picture
2 Type, F (2, 222) = 4.705, p = .014, ղp = .041. There was a negative correlation between TriPM
Total Psychopathy Score and empathy ratings for negative, r (113) = -.331, p < .001, and positive pictures, r (113) = -.218, p = .020. There was no significant correlation for neutral pictures, r (113) = -.086, p = .367 (see Figure 9).
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 52
STAI Trait and RT
When STAI Trait was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was no main effect of
2 Picture Type on RT, F (2, 222) = 2.552, p = .084, ղp = .022. There was no main effect of STAI
2 Trait, F (1, 111) = 0.080, p = .778, ղp = .001, and no significant interaction between STAI Trait
2 and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 2.215, p = .115, ղp = .020.
STAI Trait and Accuracy
When STAI Trait was added as a covariate in ANOVA, the main effect of Picture Type
2 on accuracy was not significant, F (2, 222) = 0.216, p = .796, ղp = .002. There was no main
2 effect of STAI Trait, F (1, 111) = 1.683, p = .197, ղp = .015, and no significant interaction
2 between STAI Trait and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.205, p = .805, ղp = .002.
STAI Trait and Arousal Ratings
When STAI Trait was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect of
2 Picture Type on arousal ratings, F (2, 222) = 4.965, p = .008, ղp = .043. The average arousal
2 ratings were greater for positive pictures than negative, F (1, 111) = 3.553, p = .049, ղp = .050,
2 and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 121.626, p < .001, ղp = .641. The average arousal ratings for
2 negative pictures were greater than neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 99.018, p < .001, ղp = .593.
2 There was no main effect of STAI Trait, F (1, 111) = 0.001, p = .978, ղp < .001, and no
2 significant interaction between STAI Trait and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.046, p = .954, ղp <
.001.
STAI Trait and Empathy Ratings
When STAI Trait was added as a covariate in ANOVA, there was a main effect of
2 Picture Type on empathy ratings, F (2, 222) = 13.827, p < .001, ղp = .111. The average empathy
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 53
2 ratings for negative pictures were greater than positive, F (1, 111) = 21.639, p < .001, ղp = .241,
2 and neutral pictures, F (1, 111) = 274.379, p < .001, ղp = .801. There was no main effect of
2 STAI Trait, F (1, 111) = 0.003, p = .958, ղp < .001, and no significant interaction between STAI
2 Trait and Picture Type, F (2, 222) = 0.379, p = .653, ղp = .003.
Relationship between Task Accuracy and Empathy Ratings
There were no significant correlations between accuracy and empathy ratings for positive, r (113) = -.147, p = .121, negative, r (113) = -.030, p = .754, or neutral pictures, r (113)
= -.031, p = .748.
Relationship between Reaction Time and Empathy Ratings
There were no significant correlations between empathy ratings and RT for positive, r
(113) = .047, p = .621, negative, r (113) = .108, p = .253, or neutral pictures, r (113) = .076, p =
.421.
Relationship between Task Accuracy and Arousal Ratings
There was a negative correlation between accuracy and arousal ratings for positive pictures, r (113) = -0.257, p = .006 (see Figure 10), correlations for the other two picture types did not reach significance.
Relationship between Reaction Time and Arousal Ratings
There was a positive correlation between RT and arousal ratings for negative pictures, r
(113) = .241, p = .010 (see Figure 11), correlations for the other two picture types did not reach significance.
Discussion
In this study, we used an emotional Stroop task to investigate how psychopathic traits modulated reaction time and accuracy when participants responded to the color of a square
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 54 superimposed on neutral, or empathy-eliciting positive and negative pictures. We found that in general, accuracy was not affected by picture type. However, participants responded significantly more slowly when the background featured negative pictures than neutral ones. This is interesting because participants rated negative pictures more empathy-eliciting than positive pictures, but less arousing. Higher arousal ratings were associated with longer reaction times for negative pictures, and lower accuracy for positive pictures. In contrast, empathy ratings were not associated with task performance. Moreover, only one of the psychopathic traits (PPI-R FD) that we measured showed an effect on performance. This was somewhat surprising because we found that PPI-R FD scores were strongly correlated with PPI-R Total and TriPM Boldness scores, and moderately correlated with TriPM Total scores. Previous studies have also found that PPI-R FD is strongly correlated with TriPM Boldness (r = .74; Lilienfeld et al., 2012), and both factors share similar characteristics, such as lack of anxiety, superficial charm, fearlessness, and social poise (Patrick et al., 2009). Our hypothesis that psychopathic traits related to low emotionality would improve eStroop performance was therefore, only partially supported. We had also predicted that high PPI-R CH scores would be related to an increased ability to ignore empathy- eliciting distractors, however, we found no effect of PPI-R CH, (nor PPI-R total scores or TriPM total or TriPM factor scores) on RT or accuracy, and no interactions between these traits and
Picture Type for RT or accuracy. Notably, PPI-R CH scores were only weakly correlated with
PPI-R FD, so although both may be related to low emotionality, these are clearly two different constructs. However, PPI-R CH did affect empathy ratings for emotional pictures. We found
PPI-R CH scores and empathy ratings were moderately correlated for negative pictures and weakly correlated for positive pictures. Similarly, we found that TriPM Meanness scores and
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 55 empathy ratings were moderately correlated for negative pictures and weakly correlated for positive pictures.
Although we had hypothesized that participants with high PPI-R FD traits would be faster on the eStroop task, we actually found a statistically significant interaction between PPI-R
FD and Picture Type. As predicted, there was a negative relationship between FD T scores and reaction times for positive pictures (i.e., high FD scores were associated with shorter reaction times for positive pictures). However, we found the opposite relationship for negative pictures.
Although neither relationship was statistically significant (each was very weak), it appears that participants with higher PPI-R FD scores were relatively more distracted by unpleasant pictures than those with low PPI-R FD scores. The fact that participants with higher PPI-R FD scores were less distracted by pleasant pictures, than those with low PPI-R FD scores, is somewhat consistent with many studies that have shown that interpersonal/affective psychopathic traits are associated with blunted processing of emotional stimuli in general (Anderson, Stanford, Wan, &
Young, 2011; Justus & Finn, 2017; Patrick, Bradley, & Lang, 1993). However, many of these studies have used stimuli, such as pictures from the International Affective Picture Series (IAPS;
Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2008) that do not necessarily feature people. One exception to this is a study by Decety and colleagues (2014) who found that male inmates with high PCL-R scores
(PCL-R ≥ 30) showed reduced activity in the neural circuit involved with facial processing
(inferior occipital gyrus, fusiform gyrus, and superior temporal sulcus) when passively viewing expressions of fear, sadness, or pain (Decety, Skelly, Yoder, & Kiehl, 2014).
The RT differences we found between negative and positive pictures for PPI-R FD in our study indicate deficits in emotional processing for pleasant, but not unpleasant stimuli. When comparing this to previous studies, it is important to note that there are relatively few studies that
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 56 have investigated how psychopathy affects processing of positive emotional information, and the results are mixed. One meta-analysis of 12 studies across forensic and community samples found that psychopathy in adults was related to deficits in recognizing sad, surprised and happy faces, but not other negative facial expressions (Dawel, O’Kearney, McKone, & Palermo, 2012). Other studies have found evidence for deficits in processing both positive and negative stimuli
(Carolan, et al., 2014; Medina, et al., 2016). For example, in a prior ERP study from our lab, we found that male undergraduates with high total PPI-R scores had less sustained late positive potentials to low arousing positive and negative IAPS stimuli, than those with low scores.
However, there were no psychopathy-related deficits for highly arousing stimuli (Medina et al.,
2016). Similarly, Carolan et al. (2014) found that undergraduate students who scored above the
90th percentile on the PPI-R: short form (SF) had smaller LPPs to both positive and negative pictures than participants scoring below the 25th percentile, during an eStroop task. Although their task was very similar to the one used in our study, their background stimuli included low arousal pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral IAPS pictures, and they found no psychopathy-related performance effects. This may have been because our study only used empathy-eliciting pictures
(which may be more sensitive to detecting psychopathy-related differences than general emotional pictures) or because our study had more power, i.e., 113 participants instead of 34 participants. Similar to our study, others have also found emotion-selective psychopathy-related deficits for processing empathic stimuli (Blair et al., 1997; Blair 1999). For example, two studies evaluated skin conductance responses (SCRs) to emotional stimuli and found lower SCRs to distress cues (e.g., crying people), but typical responses to threatening stimuli (such as angry faces). One study studied male inmates with PCL-R scores of ≥ 30 (Blair et al., 1997) while the other study participants consisted of children exhibiting psychopathic tendencies measured using
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 57 the Psychopathy Screening Device (Blair, 1999). Therefore, it seems that the emotional dysfunction found in psychopathy can be stimulus specific (Blair, 2007).
It is unclear why the participants in our study who were high in PPI-R FD were seemingly distracted by negative pictures, but not positive ones. In general, participants rated the positive pictures more arousing than the negative pictures, but the negative pictures elicited higher empathy ratings than the positive ones. However, there was no main effect of PPI-R FD
(or interaction) on ratings. PPI-R FD scores were not correlated with IRI Perspective Taking or
Empathic Concern, however they were moderately negatively correlated with IRI Personal
Distress. Therefore, it is unlikely that participants with high PPI-R FD scores were more distressed by negative pictures than those with low scores. It is possible that the negative pictures evoked feelings of excitement, or interest, rather than empathy or distress. In support of this idea,
Decety et al. (2013) found that male inmates with high PCL-R scores (PCL-R ≥ 30) showed increased activity in the anterior insular cortex, a region associated with self-awareness of one’s bodily and mental state (interoception), when they passively viewed pictures of people with painful facial expressions, and of people with limbs in painful situations (Decety, Skelly, et al.,
2013). This signifies that participants scoring high on psychopathic traits had some kind of emotional response to these stimuli, but it is not possible to know whether this is a positive or negative, because insula activity to these emotions is very similar. Further insights may come from a study by the same lab using similar stimuli but different instructions (Decety, Chen, et al.
2013). Among male inmates who were high in psychopathy (PCL-R ≥ 30), insula activity increased when they imagined themselves in pain and decreased when they thought about another person. Moreover, when participants imagined another person in pain, Factor 1
(Interpersonal/Affective) scores were associated with increased ventral striatum activity, an area
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 58 associated with reward processing. The authors suggested that this might indicate that participants experienced pleasure in seeing another person in distress.
Our data show some support for the idea suggested by Blair et al. (2006) that people with high psychopathic traits, in this case, PPI-R FD, “know the words but not the music”, at least we found support for that for positive empathy inducing pictures. In other words, they are able to recognize emotions but do not necessarily feel them. Blair et al. (2006) found male inmates with high PCL-R scores (≥ 30) were able to classify positive and negative emotional words as accurately as participants with low (< 20) PCL-R scores, but showed reduced priming effects, for emotional but not unemotional words. We found that PPI-R FD was associated with an increased
“bottom-up” ability to rapidly ignore task-irrelevant pleasant pictures, presumably because they did not produce a strong physiological response. These traits however did not affect participants’ more top-down abilities to appropriately rate the pictures as empathy-eliciting or arousing. This discrepancy between affective empathy and cognitive empathy abilities has been reported by others (Blair, 2005; Van Honk & Schutter, 2006). For instance, in their review of various models of psychopathy, Van Honk and Schutter (2006) suggested that hormonal imbalances within subcortical and cortical levels interfere with bottom-up processing of emotional information, thus impacting affective empathy. In contrast, others have shown that high psychopathy scores in both male (measured by PCL-R; Blair, 1996; Richell et al., 2003) and female offenders
(measured with MMPI Psychopathy Deviate scales, Widom, 1978) were not associated with deficits in theory of mind paradigms (Blair, 2005; Brook & Kosson, 2013; Decety, Chen, et al.,
2013; Decety & Lamm, 2006; Decety, Skelly et al., 2013; Dolan & Fullam, 2004; Kiehl &
Hoffman, 2011; Kosson, Lorenz, & Newman, 2006; Pfabigan et al., 2015; Serper et al., 2007).
Although, Brook and Krosson (2013) reported that PCL-R scores in male inmates were
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 59 negatively correlated with cognitive empathy (accuracy of emotion recognition in a video of a person relating emotional personal stories).
A previous study by Decety, Chen, et al. (2013), described above, suggests that psychopathy-related blunted emotional processing may be specific to the distress of others. They found that when inmates with high PCL-R scores adopted an imagine-self perspective when viewing pictures of limbs in painful situations, the neural pathways that modulated emotional responses for pain behaved normally (Decety, Chen, et al., 2013). However, when they adopted an imagine-other perspective—activation decreased (Decety, Chen, et al., 2013).
Affective Empathy and Task Performance
We also found partial support for our hypothesis that high affective empathy (measured on the IRI) would be associated with a reduced ability to ignore empathy-eliciting distractors.
The IRI Empathic Concern scale measures “other-oriented feelings”, such as the ability to feel sympathy and concern regarding the misfortune of others (Davis, 1983). Participants with high
IRI Empathic Concern scores had longer reaction times than those with low scores on the eStroop task, irrespective of the picture type. This was somewhat surprising, because we had expected an interaction with IRI Empathic Concern/Personal Distress and Picture Type.
Specifically, we had expected that responses would be disproportionately slower for positive and negative pictures compared to neutral pictures. One plausible explanation for our result may be the fact that all of the pictures used in our experiment featured faces of either people or animals.
People who are high in affective empathy may find such pictures inherently interesting.
The results of our study yielded an expected interaction between Picture Type and IRI
Empathic Concern for arousal ratings. IRI Empathic Concern was positively correlated with arousal ratings for negative and positive pictures, but showed no correlation for neutral pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 60
There was a stronger correlational pattern between IRI Empathic Concern and empathy ratings.
This was expected because IRI Empathic Concern is focused on “other-oriented feelings”
(Davis, 1983), which measures how someone feels for other individuals, as opposed to how others produce feelings of discomfort (IRI Personal Distress). Therefore, viewing empathy- eliciting pictures is likely to induce greater feelings of empathy for those who score high on IRI
Empathic Concern. Also, the relationship between IRI Empathic Concern and arousal ratings was stronger for positive than negative pictures, whereas the opposite was found for empathy ratings. The differences in arousal ratings for picture valence may also be attributed to how arousal was interpreted by the participants. It is also possible that our participants confused empathy with sympathy, negative pictures may have therefore evoked greater concern among participants because they depicted other’s misfortune. It is also plausible that participants were associating “arousal” with “pleasantness”, and thus, would explain why they rated positive pictures as more arousing than negative ones.
In contrast to IRI Empathic Concern, the IRI Personal Distress scale measures another aspect of affective empathy—specifically “self-oriented” feelings regarding personal anxiety and agitation experienced in tense interpersonal situations (Davis, 1983). Interestingly, we found no effects of IRI Personal Distress on eStroop performance. Although IRI Personal Distress showed a similar (albeit weaker) correlational relationship with empathy ratings as IRI Empathic
Concern, surprisingly there was no effect of IRI Personal Distress on arousal ratings. When looking for plausible explanations for this we checked that Cronbach’s α for both IRI Empathic
Concern and IRI Personal Distress were reliable, although IRI Empathic Concern had greater internal reliability (α = .806) than IRI Personal Distress (α = .712). However, it is possible that
IRI Personal Distress had no effect on arousal ratings due to the way that arousal was interpreted
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 61 by participants. If participants interpreted arousal as pleasantness, it is unlikely that IRI Personal
Distress—a scale which measures negative emotions such as anxiety and agitation (Davis,
1983)—would reflect positive emotional states among participants.
Affective Empathy and Psychopathic Traits
It has been suggested that one of the most distinguishing characteristics of psychopathy is a lack of empathy (Mullins-Nelson, Salekin, & Leistico, 2006), specifically, affective empathy, as evidenced by atypical responses in brain regions primarily responsible for the processing of emotional stimuli—specifically, the insula, amygdala, as well as orbital and ventrolateral frontal cortex (Blair, 2007). Thus, we expected to see strong relationships between PPI-R/TriPM scores
(especially those associated with interpersonal/affective traits) and IRI affective empathy scales.
Although IRI Empathic Concern was weakly negatively correlated with total scores on both the
PPI-R and TriPM, it was strongly negatively correlated with PPI-R CH and TriPM Meanness.
This is not surprising because TriPM Meanness, developed using the Externalizing Spectrum
Inventory (ESI; Krueger, Markon, Patrick, Benning, & Kramer, 2007), measures lack of empathy, in addition to physical aggression, destructive aggression, thrill-seeking behavior, and dishonesty (Evans & Tully, 2016). Similarly, PPI-R CH also measures a lack of empathy, as well as remorse and other social emotions (Berg, Hecht, Latzman, & Lilienfeld, 2015). IRI Personal
Distress, however, was only weakly negatively correlated with PPI-R CH, PPI-R FD, TriPM
Boldness, TriPM Meanness, and TriPM Total scores, and weakly positively correlated with
TriPM Disinhibition. At first glance, this latter finding seemed surprising, however, TriPM
Disinhibition is a construct that is correlated with externalizing behaviors (Patrick et al., 2009) and Davis (1983) found that IRI Personal Distress was correlated with decreased levels of social competence and increased levels of social dysfunction. Interestingly, when Mullins-Nelson and
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 62 colleagues (2006) looked at the relationship between self-reported empathy and PPI-R-Short
Form (PPI-R SF) scores among male and female university students, they found that IRI
Empathic Concern was negatively correlated with PPI-R-SF SCI and PPI-R-SF Total scores
(Mullins-Nelson et al., 2006). These findings are somewhat in line with ours because although we found no evidence that PPI-R SCI was correlated with affective empathy (as measured on the
IRI), we did find that PPI-R total scores were strongly negatively correlated with IRI Empathic
Concern.
Response Modulation Hypothesis
Our data support the idea that PPI-R FD is related to blunted emotional responses as suggested by Blair, Jones, Clark & Smith (2007) and Smith & Lilienfeld (2015), rather than supporting the Response Modulation Hypothesis (RMH), which argues that psychopathy is linked to a deficit in attention (Newman et al., 2010) . According to RMH, it would be difficult for individuals high in psychopathic traits to switch between stimuli if one (the background picture) is goal-irrelevant (Newman, Curtin, Bertsch, & Baskin-Sommers, 2010). As such, someone who is high in psychopathic traits should be able to tune out any external distractors and focus solely on the task at hand. Although we found evidence for this with PPI-R FD for positive pictures, we found the opposite effect for negative pictures. If psychopathy is an attention deficit as the response modulation hypothesis suggests, then there should have been no differences between the picture types (negative vs. positive).
Limitations
While our study found some interesting effects of PPI-R scores on eStroop RT, empathy, and arousal ratings, it is important to note that the study is not without its limitations. One such limitation is that we used a convenience sample of undergraduate students and measured self-
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 63 reported psychopathic traits within this population. The concept of measuring psychopathic traits in this population is far different from studying psychopathy within a forensic sample. As yet, we did not know whether this paradigm would produce comparable results in a forensic population.
Furthermore, there has been much debate in the field about what constitutes psychopathy. Lynam
& Miller (2012) share the view that although PPI-R FD traits may be a component of psychopathy, this trait in isolation is not the same construct as psychopathy. They suggest that
PPI-R FD is only a measure of extraversion that is best suited as a diagnostic model for measuring maladaptive traits, rather than an essential feature of psychopathy. Furthermore, they believe that PPI-R FD is not sufficient nor necessary in measuring psychopathy, and that antagonism, disinhibition, and antisocial behavior are stronger correlates (Lynam & Miller,
2012). Thus, the RT differences for negative and positive pictures that we found in our study may be indexing a personality trait other than psychopathy. A second limitation is that although we were successful in matching arousal ratings for positive and negative pictures in our pilot study, pilot participants rated our negative stimuli higher on the empathy scale than positive pictures. Similarly, in the eStroop study, participants rated the negative pictures more empathy- eliciting than positive ones, but rated positive pictures more arousing than both the neutral and negative pictures. Therefore, the behavioral differences that we found could be attributable to differences in arousal levels (and possibly empathy levels), rather than picture type. A third limitation was that we could have used a greater variety of pictures, as many of the ones used displayed similar or related emotional situations reflecting joy, happiness, sadness, or grief.
Although the eStroop paradigm was constructed in such a way to reduce habituation, it is still possible that repeated exposure to similar stimuli may have resulted in some habituation, reducing their overall effect. Furthermore, the valence of the pictures were randomized,
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 64 therefore, there is a possibility the emotions from one picture affected the next trial, by producing a carryover effect. Fourthly, it is also plausible that the limited variance in the subjective ratings of pictures, as well as the personality measures led to non-significant results.
Finally, while the self-report measures (PPI-R, STAI, IRI, and TriPM) used in this study have been shown to be both reliable and valid, participants may not always be accurate when reporting on their behaviors and personal thoughts. Despite the fact that they were informed of the confidentiality of their participation, they still may have had distrust in the researcher’s promise of confidentiality. In addition, while the PPI-R has subscales that detect malingering, namely “Deviant Responding” (DR) and “Virtuous Responding” (VR), the other measures used in this study do not. Participants may have fallen prey to the social desirability bias (Fisher,
1993)—an overwhelming need to present themselves in a positive light by endorsing positive traits while failing to endorse negative ones, which may more accurately reflect their own personality.
Future Directions
While we found eStroop behavioral differences for PPI-R FD traits, it would be interesting to replicate this study recording EEG differences in participants’ brain activity while performing the task. This would be similar to the study carried out by Carolan and colleagues
(2014), but would use more specific empathy-eliciting pictures, rather than IAPS stimuli, thus allowing us to examine empathy-specific ERP responses. It would also be worthwhile replicating the study in a forensic population. Lastly, our study used empathy-eliciting pictures as the distractors, but future studies could use compare performance on this task with those that ask participants to identify the emotional stimuli.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 65
Conclusion
To our knowledge, this was the first study that explored the influence of psychopathic traits on performance with an eStroop task using empathy-eliciting stimuli. In our study, we found evidence that different psychopathic traits differentially disrupted bottom-up and top down processing of empathy-related information. As hypothesized, PPI-R FD affected performance, however, contrary to our hypothesis, PPI-R CH did not—despite being positively correlated with
PPI-R FD. PPI-R FD traits were related to deficits in bottom-up processing of emotional information for positive pictures. However, we also found evidence for psychopathy-related top- down deficits in emotion processing in that PPI-R CH, Total PPI-R, TriPM Meanness, and Total
TriPM scores, showed negative correlations with empathy ratings of the stimuli. We concluded that the PPI-R FD factor affected automatic empathic processes; however, other psychopathic traits (measured using the PPI-R CH subscale, PPI-R Total Score, TriPM Meanness, and TriPM
Total Psychopathy Score) were related to empathic deficits that involve more deliberative processing. Affective empathy, as measured by IRI Empathic Concern scores, seemed to be associated with enhanced bottom-up (slower RTs on the eStroop task) and top-down processing of empathic stimuli (higher ratings on empathy scale). IRI Personal Distress, like IRI Empathic
Concern, showed positive correlations with empathy ratings, but had no effects on eStroop performance. These data add some important insights about how psychopathic traits among college students may affect their ability to respond to the emotions of others. The results from our study could be interpreting as implying that PPI-R FD traits are more innate than the psychopathy traits that influenced subjective ratings (PPI-R CH and TriPM Meanness), which might be more influenced by nurture. As such, if therapeutic interventions were geared towards addressing the psychopathic traits influenced by nurture, then these may be more likely to be
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 66 successful in modifying behaviors that lead to conflict in interpersonal relationships. The data also provides insight on the differences between emotional and attentional processing based on picture type and psychopathic personality traits. Further exploration of this topic might help to understand the impact this has on developing interpersonal relationships with others.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 67
References
Ali, F., Amorim, I. S., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empathy deficits and trait emotional
intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47(7), 758-762.doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.016
Anderson, N. E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2012). The psychopath magnetized: insights from brain
imaging. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(1), 52-60. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.008
Anderson, N. E., Stanford, M.S., Wan, L., & Young, K. (2011). High psychopathic trait females
exhibit reduced startle potentiation and increased P3 amplitude. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law 29(5), 649-666. doi: 10.1002/bsl.998
Arnett, P. A., Howland, E. W., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (1993). Autonomic responsivity
during passive avoidance in incarcerated psychopaths. Personality and Individual
Differences, 14(1), 173-184. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90187-8
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind
in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger
syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines, 42(2), 241–251. doi: 10.1017/S0021963001006643
Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Curtin, J. J., & Newman, J. P. (2015). Altering the cognitive-affective
dysfunctions of psychopathic and externalizing offender subtypes with cognitive
remediation. Clinical Psychological Science, 3 (1), 45–57.
doi:10.1177/2167702614560744
Batson, C.D., Batson, J.G., Singlsby, J.K., Harrell, K.L., Peekna, H.M., and Todd, R.M. (1991)
Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 61 (3), 413–426. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.413
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 68
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Blonigen, D. M., Hicks, B. M., & Iacono, W. G. (2005).
Estimating facets of psychopathy from normal personality traits: A step toward
community epidemiological investigations. Assessment, 12(1), 3-19.
doi: 10.1177/1073191104271223
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor
structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Validity and implications for clinical
assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 340-350. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340
Berg, J. M., Hecht, L. K., Latzman, R. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). Examining the correlates
of the coldheartedness factor of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–
Revised. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1494-1499. doi: 10.1037/pas0000129
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., White, J., Groom, C., & De Bono, J. (1999). Attentional bias for
emotional faces in generalized anxiety disorder. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38(3), 267-278.
Brook, M., and Kosson, D. S. (2013). Impaired cognitive empathy in criminal psychopathy:
Evidence from a laboratory measure of empathic accuracy. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 122(1), 156–166. doi: 10.1037/a0030261
Blagov, P. S., Patrick, C. J., Oost, K. M., Goodman, J. A., & Pugh, A. T. (2016). Triarchic
psychopathy measure: Validity in relation to normal-range traits, personality
pathology, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1), 71-
81. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2105_29_182
Blair, R. J. R. (1999). Responsiveness to distress cues in the child with psychopathic tendencies.
Personality and Individual Differences, 27 (1), 135–145. doi: 10.1016/S0191-
8869(96)00249-8
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 69
Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective to the disorder of
psychopathy. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 865-891.
doi: 10.1017/S0954579405050418
Blair, J., Jones, L., Clark, F., & Smith, M. (1997). The psychopathic individual: A lack of
responsiveness to distress cues? Psychophysiology, 34(2), 192-198. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-
8986.1997.tb02131.x
Blair, K. S., Richell, R. A., Mitchell, D. G. V., Leonard, A., Morton, J., & Blair, R. J. R.
(2006).They know the words, but not the music: Affective and semantic priming
in individuals with psychopathy. Biological Psychology, 73(2), 114-123.
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.12.006
Blair, J., Sellars, C., Strickland, I., Clark, F., Williams, A., Smith, M., & Jones, L. (1996).
Theory of mind in the psychopath. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7(1), 15-25.
doi: 10.1080/09585189608409914
Blair, R. J. R. (2007). Empathic dysfunction in psychopathic individuals. Empathy in Mental
Illness, 1, 3-16. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511543753.002
Brook, M., & Kosson, D. S. (2013). Impaired cognitive empathy in criminal psychopathy:
Evidence from a laboratory measure of empathic accuracy. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 122(1), 156-166. doi: 10.1037/a0030261
Carolan, P. L., Jaspers‐Fayer, F., Asmaro, D. T., Douglas, K. S., & Liotti, M. (2014).
Electrophysiology of blunted emotional bias in psychopathic
personality. Psychophysiology, 51(1), 36-41. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12145
Casey, H., Rogers, R. D., Burns, T., & Yiend, J. (2013). Emotion regulation in
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 70
psychopathy. Biological Psychology, 92(3), 541-548. doi:
10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.06.011
Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., Hart, S. D., & Clark, D. A. (2004). Reconstructing psychopathy:
Clarifying the significance of antisocial and socially deviant behavior in the diagnosis of
psychopathic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(4), 337-357. doi:
10.1521/pedi.18.4.337.40347
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-
126. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Dawel, A., O’Kearney, R., McKone, E., & Palermo, R. (2012). Not just fear and sadness: Meta-
analytic evidence of pervasive emotion recognition deficits for facial and vocal
expressions in psychopathy. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(10), 2288-2304.
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.08.006
Decety, J. (2010). The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Developmental
Neuroscience, 32(4), 257-267. doi: 10.1159/000317771
Decety, J., Chen, C., Harenski, C., & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). An fMRI study of affective
perspective taking in individuals with psychopathy: Imagining another in pain does not
evoke empathy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(489), 1-12.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00489
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. The
Scientific World Journal, 6 (1), 1146-1163. doi: 10.1100/tsw.2006.221
Decety, J., Skelly, L. R., & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). Brain response to empathy-eliciting scenarios
involving pain in incarcerated individuals with psychopathy. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(6),
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 71
638–645. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.27
Decety, J., Skelly, L., Yoder, K. J., & Kiehl, K. A. (2014). Neural processing of dynamic
emotional facial expressions in psychopaths. Social Neuroscience, 9(1), 36–49.
doi: 10.1080/17470919.2013.866905
Deutsch, F., & Madle, R. A. (1975). Empathy: Historic and current conceptualizations,
measurement, and a cognitive theoretical perspective. Human Development, 18(4), 267-
287. doi: 10.1159/000271488
Dolan, M., & Fullam, R. (2004). Theory of mind and mentalizing ability in antisocial personality
disorders with and without psychopathy. Psychological Medicine, 34(6), 1093-1102.
doi: 10.1017/S0033291704002028
Domes, G., Hollerbach, P., Vohs, K., Mokros, A., & Habermeyer, E. (2013). Emotional empathy
and psychopathy in offenders: An experimental study. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 27(1), 67-84. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2013.27.1.67
Drislane, L. E., Brislin, S. J., Jones, S., & Patrick, C. J. (2018). Interfacing five-factor model and
triarchic conceptualizations of psychopathy. Psychological Assessment, 30(6), 834-840.
doi: 10.1037/pas0000544
Dziobek, I., Rogers, K., Fleck, S., Bahnemann, M., Heekeren, H. R., Wolf, O. T., et al. (2008).
Dissociation of cognitive and emotional empathy in adults with Asperger syndrome using
the Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
38(3), 464–473. doi: 10.1007/s10803-007-0486-x
Evans, L., & Tully, R. J. (2016). The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM): Alternative to the
PCL-R? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.004
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 72
Consumer Research, 20(2), 303-315. doi: 10.1086/209351
Glass, S. J., & Newman, J. P. (2006). Recognition of facial affect in psychopathic offenders.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(4), 815–820. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.815
Hall, J. R., Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., Morano, M., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G.
(2014). Development and validation of Triarchic construct scales from the psychopathic
personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 447-461.doi: 10.1037/a0035665
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1(2), 111-119. doi: 10.1016/0191-
8869(80)90028-8
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R). Toronto, ON: Multi-
Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder: A case of diagnostic
confusion. Psychiatric Times, 13(2), 39-40.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (2nd ed.). Multi-Health
Systems. Toronto, ON: MultiHealth Systems, Inc..
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2005). Structural models of psychopathy. Current Psychiatry
Reports, 7(1), 57–64. doi: 10.1007/s11920-005-0026-3
Harenski, C. L., Harenski, K. A., Shane, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2010). Aberrant neural
processing of moral violations in criminal psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 119(4), 863-874. doi: 10.1037/a0020979
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization
of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological
Assessment, 1(1), 6. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6.
Hastings, M.E., Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J., 2008. Psychopathy and identification of facial
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 73
expressions of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (7), 1474–1483.doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.004
Hsieh, C. W., & Sharma, D. (2019). Priming emotional salience reveals the role of episodic
memory and task conflict in the non-color Word Stroop task. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 1-10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01826
Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York: W. W. Norton.
Justus, A. N., & Finn, P. R. (2007). Startle modulation in non-incarcerated men and women with
psychopathic traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(8), 2057-2071. doi:
10.1016
Karpman, B. (1948). Conscience in the psychopath: another version. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 18(3), 455–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1948.tb05109.x
Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D., Mendrek, A., Forster, B. B., Brink, J., & Liddle, P. F.
(2001). Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed
by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 50(9), 677-684.
doi: 10. 1016/S0006-3223(01)01222-7
Kiehl, K. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (2011). The criminal psychopath: History, neuroscience,
treatment, and economics. Jurimetrics, 51(4), 355-397.
Kosson, D. S., Lorenz, A. R., & Newman, J. P. (2006). Effects of comorbid psychopathy on
criminal offending and emotion processing in male offenders with antisocial personality
disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(4), 798-806. doi: 10.1037/0021-
843X.115.4.798
Krueger, R., Markon, K., Patrick, C., Benning, S., & Kramer, M. (2007). Linking antisocial
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 74
behavior, substance use, and personality: An integrative quantitative model of the adult
externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(4), 645-666.
doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.645
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International Affective Picture System
(IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-8.
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Levenston, G. K., Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2000). The psychopath as
observer: Emotion and attention in picture processing. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 109(3), 373-385. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.373
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-
report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488-524. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The
role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 327-340.
doi: 10.1037/a0026987
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory- revised (PPI-R)
professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 6–10. doi: 10.1037/h0047232
Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Fearless dominance and psychopathy: A response to
Lilienfeld et al. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 341-353.
doi: 10.1037/a0028296
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 75
Martin, M., Williams, R. M., & Clark, D. M. (1991). Does anxiety lead to selective processing of
Threat-related information?. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29(2), 147-160. doi:
10.1016/0005-7967(91)90043-3
Medina, A. L., Kirilko, E., & Grose-Fifer, J. (2016). Emotional processing and psychopathic
traits in male college students: an event-related potential study. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 106, 39-49. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.06.004
Mullins-Nelson, J. L., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. M. R. (2006). Psychopathy, empathy, and
perspective-taking ability in a community sample: Implications for the successful
psychopathy concept. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 5(2), 133-149.
doi: 10.1080/14999013.2006.10471238
Newman, J. P., Curtin, J. J., Bertsch, J. D., & Baskin-Sommers, A. R. (2010). Attention
moderates the fearlessness of psychopathic offenders. Biological Psychiatry, 67(1), 66-
70. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.07.035
Newman, J. P., Schmitt, W. A., & Voss, W. D. (1997). The impact of motivationally neutral cues
on psychopathic individuals: assessing the generality of the response modulation
hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(4), 563-575. doi: 10.1037/0021-
843X.106.4.563
Patrick, C. J. (2007). Getting to the Heart of Psychopathy. In H. Hervé & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The
Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 207-252). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: Startle
reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(1), 82-92. doi: 10.1037/0021-
843X.102.1.82
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 76
Patrick, C. J., & Drislane, L. E. (2015). Triarchic model of psychopathy: Origins,
operationalizations, and observed linkages with personality and general
psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 627-643. doi: 0.1111/jopy.12119
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of
psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and
meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913-938. doi:
10.1017/S0954579409000492
Pfabigan, D. M., Seidel, E. M., Wucherer, A. M., Keckeis, K., Derntl, B., & Lamm, C. (2015).
Affective empathy differs in male violent offenders with high-and low-trait
psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(1), 42-61.doi:
10.1521/pedi_2014_28_14
Pham, T. H., & Philippot, P. (2010). Decoding of facial expression of emotion in criminal
psychopaths. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24 (4), 445– 459.
doi:10.1521/pedi.2010.24.4.445
Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Criterion-related validity of the
Psychopathic Personality Inventory in a prison sample. Psychological Assessment, 10 (4),
426–430. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.10.4.426
Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Hunnicutt-Ferguson, K., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008). Psychopathy
traits and the processing of emotion words: Results of a lexical decision task. Cognition
and Emotion, 22(6), 1174-1186. doi: 10.1080/02699930701745663
Richell, R. A., Mitchell, D. G., Newman, C., Leonard, A., Baron-Cohen, S., & Blair, R. J.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 77
(2003). Theory of mind and psychopathy: can psychopathic individuals read the
‘language of the eyes’? Neuropsychologia, 41(5), 523–526. doi: 10.1016/S0028-
3932(02)00175-6
Rilling, J. K., Glenn, A. L., Jairam, M. R., Pagnoni, G., Goldsmith, D. R., Elfenbein, H. A., &
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2007). Neural correlates of social cooperation and non-cooperation as a
function of psychopathy. Biological Psychiatry, 61(11), 1260-1271.doi:
10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.07.021
Salekin, R. T., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A. M. R., & Zalot, A. A. (2004). Psychopathy in youth
and intelligence: An investigation of Cleckley's hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 33(4), 731-742. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_8
Schmitt, W. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Are all psychopathic individuals low-anxious? Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 353–358. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.108.2.353
Serper, M. R., Goldberg, B. R., Herman, K. G., Richarme, D., Chou, J., Dill, C. A., & Cancro, R.
(2005). Predictors of aggression on the psychiatric inpatient service. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 46(2), 121-127. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2004.07.031
Skeem, J., Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Louden, J. E. (2007). Two subtypes of
psychopathic violent offenders that parallel primary and secondary variants. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 116(2), 395-409. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.116.2.395
Skeem, J. L., Poythress, N., Edens, J. F., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Cale, E. M. (2003). Psychopathic
personality or personalities? Exploring potential variants of psychopathy and their
implications for risk assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(5) 513–546.
doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00098-8
Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). The response modulation hypothesis of psychopathy: A
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 78
meta-analytic and narrative analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1145-1177.
doi: 10.1037/bul0000024
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Consulting
Psychologists Press; Palo Alto, CA: 1983. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Van Honk, J., & Schutter, D. J. (2006). Unmasking feigned sanity: A neurobiological model of
emotion processing in primary psychopathy. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 11(3), 285-306.
doi: 10.1080/13546800500233728
Vaughn, M. G., Edens, J. F., Howard, M. O., & Smith, S. T. (2009). An investigation of primary
and secondary psychopathy in a statewide sample of incarcerated youth. Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice, 7(3), 172-188. doi: 10.1177/1541204009333792
Venables, N. C., Hall, J. R., & Patrick, C. J. (2014). Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial
personality disorder: A triarchic model perspective. Psychological Medicine, 44(5), 1005-
1013.doi: 10.1017/S003329171300161X
Verona, E., Sprague, J., & Sadeh, N. (2012). Inhibitory control and negative emotional processing in psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(2), 498-510. doi: 10.1037/a0025308 Widom, C. S. (1978). An empirical classification of female offenders. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 5(1), 35-52. doi: 10.1177/009385487800500103
Williamson, S., Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1991). Abnormal processing of affective words by
psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 28(3), 260-273. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-
8986.1991.tb02192.x
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 79
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Personality Measures
Covariates Mean Standard Deviation Range
PPI-R FD 45.50 11.35 21-73
PPI-R SCI 49.11 10.78 23-77
PPI-R CH 51.37 14.12 30-91
PPI-R Total 47.16 11.69 20-76
TriPM Meanness 13.08 7.94 0-39
TriPM Boldness 28.75 8.96 3-45
TriPM Disinhibition 15.95 7.47 2-39
TriPM Total 57.52 15.35 6-106
IRI EC 19.69 5.31 1-28
IRI PD 12.54 4.95 0-25
IRI PT 18.92 4.75 3-28
STAI Trait 42.02 11.49 21-73
Note. PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised; FD = Fearless Dominance; SCI = Self-Centered Impulsivity; CH = Coldheartedness; TriPM = Triarchic Personality Measure; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index; PD = Personal Distress; PT = Perspective Taking; EC = Empathic Concern; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 80
Table 2 Correlations Between Personality Measures
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. FD -
2. SCI .18 -
3. CH .31** .21* -
4. Total PPI-R .72** .78** .53** -
5. STAI Trait -.49** .36** -.17 -.07 -
6. IRI Perspective Taking .17 -.30** -.38** -.19* -.25** -
7. IRI Empathic Concern -.12 -.15 -.75** -.32** .06 .36** -
8. IRI Personal Distress -.37** .33** -.44** -.08 .50** -.12 .43** -
9. TriPM Boldness .78** -.13 .15 .38** -.60** .32** .06 -.47** -
10. TriPM Meanness .27** .49** .64** .60** .10 -.44** -.70** -.23* .05 - 11. TriPM Disinhibition -.12 .63** .02 .33** .40** -.26** -.09 .35** -.28** .41** -
12. TriPM Total .54** .52** .45** .72** -.12 -.20* -.40** -.21* .50** .77** .56** - Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory -Revised FD = PPI-R Fearless Dominance; PPI-R SCI = Self-Centered Impulsivity; PPI-R CH = Coldheartedness; TriPM = Triarchic Personality Measure; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 81
Table 3
Means and (Standard Deviations) for Reaction Time, Accuracy, Arousal Ratings, and Empathy Ratings
Picture Type Reaction Time Accuracy Arousal Ratings Empathy Ratings
Negative 829.4 a (198.1) 93.0 (11.7) 3.1 b,c (1.8) 5.3 d,e (1.5)
Positive 824.5 (217.5) 94.1 (9.8) 3.4 b,c (1.8) 4.7 d,e (1.7)
Neutral 816.1 a (191.4) 93.6 (9.7) 1.8b (1.1) 2.5 d (1.4)
Note. Superscript letters indicate that means were significantly different from each other at p < .05 (a, c) and p < .01 (b, d, e) levels. No covariates were included.
Table 4
Standard Error for Reaction Time with Covariates
Picture FD SCI CH PPI-R IRI IRI IRI TriPM TriPM M TriPM TriPM STAI Type Total EC PT PD Bold D Total Trait
Negative 18.7 18.5 18.5 18.6 18.2 18.7 18.6 18.8 18.4 18.7 18.5 18.7
Positive 20.5 20.5 20.4 20.4 20.1 20.5 20.4 20.5 20.3 20.6 20.3 20.5
Neutral 18.1 18.0 17.9 18.0 17.7 18.0 18.0 18.1 17.9 18.1 17.9 18.1
Note. PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised; FD = Fearless Dominance; SCI = Self-Centered Impulsivity; CH = Coldheartedness; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index; PD = Personal Distress; PT = Perspective Taking; EC = Empathic Concern; TriPM = Triarchic Personality Measure; Bold = Boldness; M = Meanness; D = Disinhibition; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 82
Table 5
Standard Error for Accuracy with Covariates
Picture FD SCI CH PPI-R IRI IRI IRI TriPM TriPM TriPM TriPM STAI Type Total EC PT PD Bold M D Total Trait
Negative 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Positive .92 .91 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .91 .92 .92 Neutral .91 .91 .91 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .90 .92 .91 Note. PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised; FD = Fearless Dominance; SCI = Self-Centered Impulsivity; CH = Coldheartedness; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index; PD = Personal Distress; PT = Perspective Taking; EC = Empathic Concern; TriPM = Triarchic Personality Measure; Bold = Boldness; M = Meanness; D = Disinhibition; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
Table 6
Standard Error for Arousal Ratings with Covariates
Picture FD SCI CH Total IRI IRI IRI TriPM TriPM TriPM TriPM Total STAI Type PPI-R EC PT PD Bold M D Psychopathy Trait
Negative .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 Positive .17 .17 .17 .12 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 Neutral .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 Note. PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised; FD = Fearless Dominance; SCI = Self-Centered Impulsivity; CH = Coldheartedness; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index; PD = Personal Distress; PT = Perspective Taking; EC = Empathic Concern; TriPM = Triarchic Personality Measure; Bold = Boldness; M = Meanness; D = Disinhibition; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 83
Table 7
Standard Error for Empathy Ratings with Covariates
Picture FD SCI CH Total IRI IRI IRI TriPM TriPM TriPM TriPM Total STAI Type PPI-R EC PT PD Bold M D Psychopathy Trait
Negative .14 .14 .12 .14 .11 .14 .13 .14 .12 .14 .13 .14 Positive .15 .16 .15 .15 .14 .16 .15 .16 .15 .16 .15 .16 Neutral .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 Note. PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised; FD = Fearless Dominance; SCI = Self-Centered Impulsivity; CH = Coldheartedness; IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index; PD = Personal Distress; PT = Perspective Taking; EC = Empathic Concern; TriPM = Triarchic Personality Measure; Bold = Boldness; M = Meanness; D = Disinhibition; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 84
Positive Negative 200 150 100 50 0 -50
RT Difference Difference RT -100 -150 -200 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PPI-R FD T Scores
Figure 1. Negative picture RT difference scores showed a positive relationship with PPI-R FD T scores, whereas positive pictures had a negative relationship. Red circles indicate data for positive pictures, and black for negative pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 85
Negative Positive 7
6
5
4
3 Empathy Ratings Ratings Empathy 2
1 20 40 60 80 100 PPI-R Coldheartedness (CH) T Score
Figure 2. There was a negative correlation between PPI-R Coldheartedness T scores and empathy ratings for emotional pictures. Red circles indicate data for positive pictures, and black for negative pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 86
Positive Negative Neutral
7
6
5
4
Empathy Ratings Ratings Empathy 3
2
1 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Total PPI-R Scores Figure 3. There was a negative correlation between Total PPI-R scores and empathy ratings. Red circles indicate the data for positive pictures, black indicates the data for negative pictures, and blue for neutral pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 87
Positive Negative Neutral
1500
) 1300 ms 1100 900 700
Reaction Times Times ( Reaction 500 300 0 10 20 30 IRI Empathic Concern
Figure 4. Higher IRI Empathic Concern scores were associated with longer reaction times irrespective of the picture type. Red circles indicate the data for positive pictures, black circles indicate the data for negative pictures, and blue for neutral pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 88
7 Positive Negative 6 5 4 3
2 Arousal Ratings Arousal 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IRI Empathic Concern
Figure 5. There is a positive correlation between IRI Empathic concern and arousal ratings for positive and negative pictures. The red circles represent the data for the positive pictures, and the black circles represent the data for the negative pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 89
Negative Positive Neutral 7 6 5 4
3 Empathy Ratings Ratings Empathy 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 IRI Empathic Concern
Figure 6. There was a positive correlation between IRI Empathic Concern and Empathy Ratings. This relationship was stronger for negative pictures than positive or neutral pictures. Red circles indicate the data for positive pictures, black for negative pictures, and blue for neutral pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 90
Negative Positive Neutral
7
6
5
4 Empathy Ratings Ratings Empathy 3
2
1 0 5 10 15 20 25 IRI Personal Distress Figure 7. There was a positive correlation between IRI Personal Distress and Empathy ratings for positive and neutral pictures. Red circles indicate the data for positive pictures, black for negative pictures, and blue for neutral pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 91
Negative Positive Neutral 7
6
5
4
3 Empathy Ratings Ratings Empathy
2
1 0 10 20 30 40 TriPM Meanness
Figure 8. There was a negative correlation between empathy ratings and TriPM Meanness for negative and positive pictures. This trend was stronger for negative pictures. No correlation was found for neutral pictures. Red circles indicate the data for positive pictures, black circles indicate the data for negative pictures, and blue for neutral pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 92
Negative Positive Neutral 7
6
5
4 Empathy Ratings Ratings Empathy 3
2
1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 TriPM Total
Figure 9. There was a negative correlation between empathy ratings and TriPM Total for negative and positive pictures. Red circles indicate the data for positive pictures, while black circles indicate the data for negative pictures, and blue circles indicate the data for neutral pictures
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 93
100
90
80
70
Accuracy Accuracy 60
50
40 1 3 5 7 Arousal Ratings
Figure 10. There was a significant negative correlation between accuracy and arousal ratings for positive pictures.
PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AND EMPATHY 94
1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700
Reaction (ms) Time Reaction 600 500 400 1 3 5 7 Arousal Ratings
Figure 11. For negative pictures, there was a positive correlation between reaction time and arousal ratings.