Empathy and Moral Deficiency in Psychopaths - Research Paper Example

? Empathy and Moral Deficiency in Psychopaths Introduction This paper is an analytical discussion on psychopathy, drawn from five recent studies on this field of abnormal psychology. As an overview, the studies in this field are so many and varied given the years in which abnormal psychology has been the object of theory and practice in the science of psychology. This paper has therefore focused on recent studies that may draw light on the limited issue of the correlation between psychopathy and human knowing-and-feeling. In the five studies selected by this paper, human knowing-and-feeling are more technically identified as cognitive and emotional or affective empathy. In general, the focus of discussion is on empathy and moral deficiency in psychopaths. This issue, however, has its complexity and mixed theories. There is therefore the need to clarify basic issues such as the definition of psychopathy, its traits and factors prior to discussing the focus of this paper. More specifically, this paper therefore seeks to clarify the following: 1. What is psychopathy? 2. What are the psychopathic traits and antisocial behavior of the psychopath? 3. How do cognitive and emotional empathy correlate to psychopathy? 4. How useful and successful have been the selected five studies and the assumptions they sought to prove in terms of: 4.1. relevance 4.2. methods 4.2. results? 5. What lessons on empathy and emotional deficiency can be drawn from these studies? The studies used by this paper were: Psychopaths know right from wrong but don’t care (Cima, M., Tonnaer, F., and Hauser, M., 2010) Aberrant Neural Processing of Moral Violations in Criminal Psychopaths (Harenski, C, Harenski, K., and Shane, M., 2010) Impaired Cognitive Empathy in Criminal Psychopathy: Evidence From a Laboratory Measure of Emphatic Accuracy (Brook, M. and Kosson, D., 2013) Emotional Empathy and Psychopathy (Domes, Gregor, et al., 2013) Evaluating the Relation Between Psychopathy and Affective Empathy: Two Preliminary Studies (Lisher, David A. et al, 2012. Defining psychopathy Psychopathy is defined by Harenski, C. et al. as “a disorder defined by a cluster of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral characteristics including impulsivity, grandiosity, callousness, and lack of empathy” (2010). According to Harenski, C. et al., the core features of psychopathy are its: “early emerging, severe and persistent antisocial behaviors, many of which are often described as immoral (e.g. committing acts of violence against others)” in addition to “a profound lack of guilt or remorse” (2010). On the other hand, psychopaths are described as those adults, who “have deficits in emotional processing and inhibitory control, engage in morally inappropriate behavior, and generally fail to distinguish moral from conventional violations” (Cima, et al., 2010). From this definition, several major elements that comprise psychopathy can be drawn, namely: (a) deficiency in emotions and inhibitions (b) failure to distinguish moral right and wrong, and (c) inappropriate behavior. From related literature cited by the Cima, et al. study, these elements may be explained as follows: (a) Deficiency in emotional processing refers to a defect in emotional regulation in relation to moral judgment. Meanwhile, deficiency in inhibition refers to difficulty, if not inability, to control oneself from performing an act, presumably bad or wrong. (b) Failure to distinguish moral from conventional violations spring from a flawed knowledge by way of inability to distinguish right and wrong. For Cima et al., this relates to lack of capacity among psychopaths to distinguish between moral transgression (such as hitting a person in a restaurant) and amoral conventional transgression (such as wearing pajamas in a restaurant). (c) Morally inappropriate behavior refers to actions characterized by impulsiveness. In Cima et. al. this is the same as saying that psychopaths “don’t care.” Examples of what psychopaths typically don’t care to do are murder, sexual molestation, fraud and arson. To note, the definitions from the selected studies offer much by way of clarifying what psychopathy is, according to the abnormal behavior and traits that are listed in the categories under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders or DSM IV. It may be noted that in DSM IV the term psychopathy is not used, but included under the category of antisocial personality disorder under Axis 2. The Axis sets (1-5) are types of information in DSM IV that presently serve psychiatrists in the appropriate diagnosis of patients. DSM IV is viewed as the categorization of abnormal psychological disorders that give importance to mind-body interactions underlying most psychological problems (McConnell, 2000). Psychopathic traits and antisocial behavior In the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, which is most commonly used standard for assessing psychopathy, there are listed sets of factors, facets and items which characterize traits of psychopathy (Patrick, 2011). These are: Factor 1 Factor 2 Other items Facet 1: Interpersonal Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Cunning/manipulative Facet 2: Affective Lack of remorse or guilt Emotionally shallow Callous/lack of empathy Failure to accept responsibility for own actions Facet 3: Lifestyle Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom Parasitic lifestyle Lack of realistic, long-term goals Impulsiveness Irresponsibility Facet 4: Antisocial Poor behavioral controls Early behavioral problems Juvenile delinquency Revocation of conditional release Criminal versatility Many short-term marital relationships Promiscuous sexual behavior The PCL-R items are split : Factor 1 involves interpersonal or affective (emotion) personality traits and higher values; also, low empathy as well as social dominance and less fear or depression. Factor 2 involves either impulsive-irresponsible behaviors; also antisocial behaviors associated with a maladaptive lifestyle, including criminality. Among the five studies, , Cima, M., et al. used the Psychopathic Checklist Revised (PCL-R) test, as a valid and reliable instrument to measure psychopathic traits and antisocial behavior. On the other hand, the Lishner et al. study used the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-Version III (2012) which consists of 64 self- descriptive statements to assess psychopathic traits in non-criminal subjects. Lishner et al. study’s aimed to establish that the affective empathy task would evoke emotional contagion and emphatic concern, using the traits of callous affect (feeing), interpersonal manipulation, erratic lifestyle, and criminal tendencies. Relationship between psychopathy and empathy Three of the five studies appropriately showed the relationship between psychopathy and empathy. To explain: A. The Cima et al. study. In the Cima et al. study, the hypothesis was made that psychopaths have knowledge of right and wrong (cognitive empathy), and yet they don’t care, thus engaging in inappropriate behavior. Actually, Cima et al. has taken an alternative stand to the more dominant theory that “psychopaths lack an understanding of right and wrong” (2009). For methodology, Cima et al. adopted two sets of participants in their study. These are comprised by (a) psychopaths and (b) healthy and non-psychopathic delinquents. Then a two-step evaluative process was made: (1) Application of the Psychopathic Checklist Revised (PCR-R) on respondents to measure psychopathic traits ( shallowness, impulsivity, callousness, criminal history and lack of moral obligation, while assessing examining medical and juridical records and documents, in addition to interviews of participants. IQ scores were also made available and became part of a profile assessment of participants. (2) A stimuli was subsequently used in the form of moral dilemmas presented by way of a questionnaire which required direct “yes” or “no” answers on whether certain familiar transgressions would be morally right or wrong. As a result of the evaluative process, the study showed that: A. Education had no significant effect on judgments of dilemmas. B. There was no significant difference between the two groups of participants, such that psychopaths did not endorse the predicted outcome. In concrete terms, they did not significantly endorse what is self-serving (harming for self-benefit) and what is more utilitarian (harming one for the benefit of others). The study therefore established the relationship between psychopathy and cognitive empathy: “We conclude that psychopaths make the same moral distinction as healthy individuals when it comes to evaluating permissibility of an action imbedded in a moral dilemma.” And in less technical terms: “Psychopaths know what is right and wrong, but simply don’t care. “ To make a critical comment on the Cima et al. study: If the study’s position is valid, this can have bearing on court rules in which mental insanity is invoked for mentally ill suspects or convicted criminals. According to the Penal Code, guilt for crime under a state of insanity is seen diminished. Thus, penalty may reduced if the judge decides, such as through confinement in a mental health asylum rather than a prison detention house. In view of the Cima et al. study, jurisprudence may then have to be reformed, since psychopaths—with the hypothesis that they have knowledge of their crime—will have to bear the full penalty of the law. Lest, the aforesaid situation on repercussions to jurisprudence be given further weight, it should be noted that Cima et al. themselves took precautions on the results of their study. They made an admission that the size of participants to the study “is too small to be evaluated statistically, neither the scatter in the data shows relationship between PCR-R score and proportion of personal dilemmas endorsed, nor a clear pattern for type of crime” (2009). This is then an admission that universal applicability of the study’s alternative framework for psychopathy may not be valid. The study therefore cannot be useful for jurisprudence. Furthermore, Cima et al. cited studies (Damasio 1994; Dywer 2004; Greene, 2003, and others) which point to curtailment of rational understanding of a moral dilemma among psychopaths owing to an intuitive system that eliminated moral judgment (2009). In other words, psychopaths may not have knowledge of right and wrong, due to this intuitive impulse to act wrongly or immorally. Evidence from other studies also point to (a) dumb-founded subjects not having coherent explanation on their morally forbidden action (b) emotions priming influence on moral judgment. Psychopaths then are viewed to have patterns of diminished moral judgment or knowledge of right and wrong. In sum therefore, Cima et al.’s has shown ambivalence in fully supporting their findings. Still, the study can have value in its recommendation that future researches and therapeutic interventions should give importance to caring by way of behavioral therapy. B. The Domes et al. study The Domes et. al. study adopted the dominant theory that cognitive understanding of right and wrong is diminished or impaired among psychopaths. From this vantage point, the authors sought to establish whether this impairment may be associated or caused by a lack of emotional empathy among psychopaths. Actually, this study follows a trend in other studies (such as by Birbau-Herman et al. among others). The low fear theory was hypothesized by these studies which states that the reduced ability to adjust to negative consequences to one’s own behavior, more specifically fear, may be the crucial influence for psychopathic traits. In general, other studies advanced the association between emotional recognition and psychopathic traits. In the Domes et al. study, distinction was also made between emotional empathy (feeling for others) and cognitional empathy (knowing the morally right and wrong). More directly, the present study hypothesized that “psychopathic offenders would show a pronounced deficit in emotional empathy functioning (compassion) but not in cognitive empathy (perspective taking” (2013). For methodology, the study used self-report questionnaires and computerized performance tasks more particularly the 3- tasks of the Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET). This method sought to differentiate between cognitive and emotional empathy functioning. It also inferred (a) cognitive state (b) emotional state or feelings of the participants in response to stimuli (c) the degree of arousal while viewing the pictures-stimuli. Participants were prison offenders who fulfilled the criteria of index offenses (murder, grievous bodily harm, etc.). Factors which may affect integrity of findings were also considered, ensuring that none of the participants were diagnosed for lifetime psychotic disorders, marked depression, bipolar disorder, intellectual impairment, etc. Using a statistical two-way ANOVA and other statistical scores, the study showed that, against prediction, the level of psychopathic traits among offenders did not account for a significant amount of variance of either cognitive or emotional empathy. There was no evidence of any impairment of emotional empathy in the MET, neither were relevant deficits shown by the self-report measures. Still, a small but significant correlation of the Empathy Quotient and the Likert scale was established. To comment, the study admitted that its ratings had been subjective, and so future studies should validate subjective emotional responses with more objective measures, such as with the use of psychophysiological methods. The fact that emotional empathy remained intact and undiminished was against the prediction of the study. The study, as admitted by researchers, failed due to the limited empathy measures applied. The complexity of the issue points to the need for more effective behavioral measures to overcome the limitations of the study. In sum, emotional empathy remains to be a suspected factor in psychopathic traits and behavior, but present scientific tools are unable to provide objective evidence that this is so.. C. The Brook & Kosson study A third study by Michael Brook and David S. Kosson gave focus to cognitive empathy deficiency in criminal psychopathy. The study sought to overcome the limitations of previous studies on emotional processing on knowledge of right and wrong among psychopaths. It is to be noted that this complements the dominant paradigm of diminished knowledge of right and wrong. For methodology, the PCR-R assessment was used, followed by a semi-structured interview of participants on adjustment, employment, relationship, family, and criminal activity. This was supported by a review of the participant’s institutional records. Then the International Affective Picture System was applied as a stimuli while asking participants to rate moral content on picture sets (moral, immoral and neutral). During the process, MR images were collected using a Parametric Mapping software (SPM 5). Together with computations, a functional image was formed that represented the average association between brain activity (through slowness or speed of response to pictures) and moral or emphatic response ratings, more particularly on moral violations and their severity. Results showed increased brain activity in the cortex region relative to nonmoral and neutral picture viewing, while this inputs were no manifest among subject psychopaths. Non-psychopaths showed a positive association between moral violations severity ratings and amygdala activity that was also not present in psychopaths. Conversely, psychopaths showed negative associations between moral violation severity ratings and posterior temporal activity that was not present in nonpsychopaths. Furthermore, psychopaths showed reduced moral versus nonmoral and neutral picture distinctions in the cortex region relative to nonpsychopaths. On the whole, psychopaths showed reduced moral versus nonmoral and neutral picture distinctions. The results may have set a neurobiological indicator of moral insensitivity in psychopathy. Summary of results of the studies From the analysis of the studies, the following results provide clarification and knowledge on the issue of empathy and moral deficiency in psychopaths: 1. Psychopathy is an antisocial personality disorder characterized by deficiency in emotional processing, as well as inhibited control that leads the subject to commit morally inappropriate actions. 2. The Cima et al. study failed to solidly establish that psychopaths know what is right and wrong, or that their cognitive empathy is similar to those of healthy persons. 3. The dominant theory stands affirming deficiency in knowing right and wrong or in cognitive empathy. 4. Diminished cognitive empathy correlates with moral deficiency by way of inhibited control to regulate inappropriate behavior in psychopaths. Contribution of the five selected studies The five studies have significance in advancing the field of psychopathology, along A. Relevance The studies sought to fill the gap in previous studies through: (a) clarification of the concepts and theories due to the mixed body of findings in other studies (b) fill the void as previous studies have not directly compared cognitive and emotional facets of empathy (c) strengthen the theories on the behavioral and neural correlation of moral decision-making in psychopathy. B. Methods The studies have contributed in enriching clinical diagnosis of psychopaths through the use of valid ad reliable instruments such as the Psychopathic Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Trier Social Stress Test, self-reporting, computerized decision tasks, static image and video stimuli for force-choice response, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to record hemodynamic activity. C. Results Most successful of the five studies were the Harenski et al. study which established potential underpinnings of moral insensitivity in psychopathy, as a neurobiological model of morality and the Brook and Kosson study which showed that at the psychopathy level, the interpersonal and lifestyle features of psychopathy were associated with poor emphatic accuracy for positive emotions, thus associating psychopathy with ratings of perceived task difficulty. Conclusion The societal cost of psychopathy is high due to the damage inflicted on persons and properties, in addition to the cost in incarceration of convicted psychopaths. Scientific studies in this field can certainly contribute to minimizing this huge cost through preventive and curative methods and systems. Given the five selected studies, the possibilities for continued and improved studies are encouraging, such that there is much hope that psychology can offer more effective tools to shape the body, mind and social environment of the future. And in an age of technology that hastens the speed, upgrades the quality, and expands the impact of the sciences, abnormal psychology research can be viewed positively across the bright horizons of the years ahead. References Brook and Kosson (2013). “Impaired Cognitive Empathy in Criminal Psychopathy: Evidence From a Laboratory Measure of Empahtic Accuracy.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2013, Vol. 122, No. 1, 156-166. Cima, Tonnaer, and Hauser ((2010). “Psychopaths know righta dn wrong but don’t cre.” Available from SCAN (2010) 5-59-67. Domes, Hoolerbach, Vohs, Mokros, Habermeyer (2013). “Emotional Empathy and Psychopath in Offenders: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(1), 67-84, 2013@2013 The Guilford Press. Harenski, Karneski and Shane ((2010). “Aberrant Neural Processing of Moral Isolations in Criminal Psychopaths.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2010, Vol. 119, Nov. 4, 863-874 Lishner, Vitacco, Hong, Mosley, Miska, and Stocks (2012). “Evaluating the Relation Between Psychopathy and Affective Empathy:: Two Preliminary Studies.” (2012). International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 56 (8) 1161-1181 @ The Author(s) 2012 McConnell. (2000). Understanding Human Behavior.” New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 569-595. Patrick (Editor) (2005). Handbook of Psychopathy. Guilford Press. 61. Read More