Analysis of the Behavior of Psychopaths - Case Study Example

Moral Psychology/Philosophy Background of the study The study was conducted because an analysis of the behavior of psychopaths led to several observations. One observation is that psychopaths, to some extent, may suffer from damage to their moral judgment and that they have a diminished capacity to differentiate between conventional and moral issues. These psychopaths also seem to have less control in their emotional processes, which makes them more impulsive and more likely to be violent. In effect, based on the above beliefs, psychopaths have emotional and moral deficits which cause them to manifest morally inappropriate behavior. The authors cite different studies which point to the fact that the diminished moral processes among psychopaths is caused by diminished emotional processing. Based on the above premises and beliefs, this study seeks to answer the extent to which normal emotional regulation is necessary in making moral judgments; the extent to which systems that guide moral judgments dissociate from those that guide moral behavior; and whether or not there are parallels between psychopaths and VMPC patients in relation to deficits in socio-emotional processing and self-control. In reviewing the results from the different studies, the authors were able cite one study which pointed out that possibly after a trauma to the frontal region, a patient presented with acquired sociopathy with noticeably aberrant behavior and higher levels of aggression. In another study, authors sought to use multiple psychophysiologic measures in order to compare emotional responses to unpleasant and pleasant stimuli. In the process, they were able to conceptualize the idea that psychopaths have a marked lack of fear of aversive events. The results also indicate that a deficit in processing affective data among psychopaths also relates to a deficit in processing affective data, regardless of the stimuli being negative or positive. Methods and Results The research paradigm used by the authors was largely based on the concept of assessing psychopathy among respondents according to the Psychopathic Checklist-Revised test (PCL-R). According to such test, the cut-off score of 26 indicated possible psychopathic tendencies among respondents. This study was carried out as a quantitative research meant to gather information about a group of people and assess their tendencies and behavioral trends according to psychological standards of measure. It is a study meant to assess behavior and to translate such results into numerical figures which indicate logical conclusions. Statistical analysis was conducted on the respondents’ answers to the structured questions and later, results from such analysis were used to answer the issues raised in the study. The subjects were divided into test groups – one is a healthy control group and the other is tested to assess for psychopath and non-psychopath behavior. The control group was recruited from the south of the Netherlands, the psychopath and the non-psychopath group was taken from the Forensic Psychiatric Centre de Rooyse Wissel (FPCdRW) in Venray, Netherlands. These respondents were recruited from the general population in the Netherlands (control group) and from the population of the offenders in the FPCdRW center in Venray, Netherlands (test group). The respondents were stimulated by being presented with seven impersonal and 14 personal moral dilemmas and the respondents responded either “yes” or “no” to these queries. The authors also used the Socio-Moral Reflection questionnaire in order to ensure that the respondents were not lying to the questions being asked in the first questionnaire. This questionnaire asked straightforward and explicit questions on transgressions. No group was treated differently or manipulated in any way during the interview process. The authors have an expectation about the study results – that indeed, psychopaths, know right from wrong, and they choose to ignore the difference between these two. The authors employed this design because they believe in summarizing the dominant perspective on the subject matter or issue. They also believe that through this design, it is possible to make moral and emotional judgments on the subjects’ behavior based on patterns and trends which emerge in a group of sample respondents. They also believe that this study design would help determine the extent to which systems impact on moral judgments and the extent to which parallels emerge between psychopath and other respondents. The results reveal that psychopaths have the same moral distinctions in relation to their healthy counterparts in terms of assessing the permissibility of actions in moral dilemmas. These results agree with the hypothesis that normal social emotional processing is not needed in making moral judgments. In effect, psychopaths know what is right or wrong, but they just do not care about such disparity. These results help support the hypothesis because they provide a numerical equivalent through statistical data – computed through the logical processes of mathematics – in order to present a total which is greater than the other and therefore, merits more reality or truth (Healey & Prus, p. 25). Methodological Critique 1 The experiment shows, to some extent, what the authors claim. There are however, major gaps in their claims. For one, the claim of the authors is very much general and sweeping. The results do not actually apply to a general population. The authors did not indicate a random sampling method which would have ensured the validity of the results. The author may respond that they ensured the generalizability of their results by ensuring that all the respondents answered the same questionnaire. However, the process of choosing the respondents is already flawed. The sample size is not large enough and the manner of coming up with the sample size has not been fully explained by the authors. In order to improve the generalizability of the research sample, the authors should have explained how they arrived at the sample size for their study (Bailey, p. 82). Once the sample size was reached, the manner of choosing respondents from the general population should have been explained. The manner of choosing respondents should have been conducted by carrying out a randomized sampling method in order to give the general population a chance to be chosen as respondents. Even in a group of respondents already chosen for this study (i.e., those from the FPCdRW center in Netherlands), random sampling can still be employed in order to reduce bias and increase the validity of the study results. Random sampling helps ensure that in a group of potential respondents, all respondents would have the chance to be chosen and to be included in the sample (King & Saia, p. 1). Random sampling helps to increase the reliability and the validity of the results and the research process. Throughout the research text, the authors/researchers did not specify details or methods in choosing their respondents. This is a crucial element of the research process because such details help ensure the external validity of the study and its results (Howell, p. 3). Philosophical Significance The authors make claims about the relevance of their study to moral philosophy. The authors claim that emotional processing is a factor in moral understanding and that compromised emotional processing does not contribute to abnormal moral psychology among psychopaths. The authors also claim that the moral actions of psychopaths were largely impersonal and more permissible than their personal moral actions. Based on the results of their study, the authors were one in pointing out that psychopaths do not have a decreased emotional processing and they have as much skill and ability to evaluate moral scenarios – they just often choose not to allow for moral evaluation of their actions. The authors associate the process of having to make hasty decisions or to respond quickly to a situation which triggers the more impulsive and violent characterization of psychopaths. The authors pointed out that psychopaths do make the same distinctions in morality as their healthy counterparts. Unfortunately, these psychopaths do not seem to care one way or another about these moral boundaries. These claims, to a certain extent, may be considered plausible. The authors did present statistical results which helped to support their claims; however, there are limitations to their study which greatly affects the validity of their claims. The results of this study seem to be applicable more to a smaller population and may not withstand scrutiny when applied to a larger population of respondents. The lack of randomization, verifiable sampling methods, and the presence of gaps in the testing methods represent major limitations in this study which affect reliability. The questionnaire which was used to assess the tendencies of the respondents was not evaluated for applicability in this study. Although the questionnaires provided sufficient details and ideas about emotional processing among psychopaths and the control groups, these questionnaires were not specifically formulated for this study. They were already pre-existing questionnaires whose results were not meant to be used to support research studies. There was therefore a diminished plausibility and reliability in the questions used to measure the emotional processing and morality decisions and judgments of the respondents. In general, the sweeping support for the statement: ‘psychopaths know right from wrong but do not care’ is too general a conclusion and statement to make in the light of the individual differences which people have with each other and the way people process their thoughts, emotions, and their actions. Even when a group of people may be labeled as psychopaths by mental health professionals, these people – individually – may not process or respond in the same fashion as other psychopaths when confronted with moral decisions and dilemmas. A person’s unique characteristics can still impact on his actions and would make him behave in a different way (Spielberger, p. 118). The claims of the authors are plausible to a certain extent. These claims may be plausible in evaluating how psychopaths should be treated in society. People must always be wary of them and must assume the worse in order to avoid the unfortunate circumstance of falling prey to their criminal of violent actions. However, on an individual scale, each psychopathic case must be judged based on the circumstances surrounding his life and on the moral decisions he has made in his life. These results definitely have consequences on how we should think about making moral decisions and judgments. The results imply that psychopaths must not be treated as individuals with mental illnesses who cannot distinguish right from wrong (Haybron, p. 58). Instead, society, especially law enforcement authorities, must assume that they are as culpable as normal and healthy individuals. In assuming that psychopaths cannot distinguish between right and wrong, this already places them a step above the law and above moral judgment. It is therefore a responsibility of law enforcers to assume that all individuals and offenders have the capacity to make adequate judgments about the decisions they have to make. Nevertheless, even as such assumptions are being made, sweeping judgments about a psychopath’s ethical judgments and moral decisions have to be based on the individual assessment and evaluation of offenders. After fully assessing an offender’s psyche and background, the judgment about his moral philosophy and emotional processes can be made. Some nuances in a person’s characterization may indicate that he does have the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. But then again, a deeper evaluation may indicate that he does not have the capacity to make ethical or moral distinctions. The main point is that sweeping judgments about psychopaths cannot be made when insufficient research has been carried out to support such judgments. Logical and individual evaluations must be made by concerned authorities on an individual basis and the statement made by the research cited here must be used only when applicable. Works Cited Bailey, K. (1994) Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press Cima, M. & Hauser, M. (2010) Psychopaths know right from wrong but do not care. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5(1): 59-67 Haybron, D. (1994) Earths abominations: philosophical studies of evil. New York: Rodopi Healey, J. & Prus, S. (2009) Statistics: A Tool for Social Research. California: Cengage Learning Howell, D. (2007) Statistical Methods for Psychology. California: Cengage Learning King, V. & Saia, J (2004) Choosing a Random Paper. Sandia University Research Program. 29 November 2010 from http://slimjim.cs.unm.edu/~saia/papers/random.pdf Spielberger, C. (2004) Encyclopedia of applied psychology, Volume 1. New York: Academic Press Read More