- Email: [email protected]
Examining relationships between facial emotion recognition, self-control, and psychopathic traits in a non-clinical sample
Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Examining relationships between facial emotion recognition, self-control, and psychopathic traits in a non-clinical sample Catherine E. Prado, Matt S. Treeby, Simon F. Crowe ⇑ La Trobe University, School of Psychological Science, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 December 2014 Received in revised form 8 February 2015 Accepted 11 February 2015 Available online 3 March 2015 Keywords: Psychopathy Psychopathic personality traits Facial emotion recognition Primary and secondary psychopathy Self-control deficits Emotion perception Non-clinical sample
a b s t r a c t Although psychopathy is a low prevalence disorder, individuals with sub-clinical psychopathic traits have been shown to reside within the community. One account of psychopathy proposes that deficits in selfcontrol play a causal role. Other theorists propose that psychopathy-related antisocial behaviour can be attributed to a constitutional deficit of empathy, resulting from an inability to interpret and respond to the affective cues of others. These theoretical perspectives may both be relevant if psychopathy is understood as a dimensional construct, with primary psychopathy the consequence of a neurological vulnerability to emotional deficits, and secondary psychopathy reflecting an environmental adaptation and subsequent failure of self-control. Using a non-clinical sample (n = 479), this study examined the relationship between sub-clinical psychopathic traits, self-control and the identification of facial emotion. Both primary and secondary psychopathic traits were associated with reduced accuracy in identifying facial affect, with more pronounced impairments seen for primary psychopathy. While both primary and secondary psychopathic traits were found to be related to deficits in dispositional self-control, the effect was significantly greater for secondary psychopathy. Crown Copyright Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. A continuum of psychopathic traits
Few clinical conditions are considered to be as malignant as psychopathy, and as a result it has been extensively studied (Skeem, Johansson, Andershed, Kerr, & Louden, 2007). Despite this work, disagreement persists regarding the causes and underlying features of the disorder (Fowles, 2011). Some investigators have suggested the phenomenology of the disorder is heterogeneous, with different developmental routes contributing to the expression of subtypes of psychopathy (Skeem et al., 2007; Vaughn, Edens, Howard, & Smith, 2009). While the majority of research in this area has been undertaken using clinical populations, usually drawn from forensic settings (Neumann, Hare, & Pardini, 2014), it is now well established that some individuals with high levels of psychopathic traits live successfully within the community (Cleckley, 1982). Several researchers (e.g., Lilienfeld, 1994; Lilienfeld, 1998; Lynam, 2002) have argued that rather than existing as an allor-none category, personality traits associated with psychopathic behaviours may actually exist on a continuum, with less extreme variations of the condition observed across the wider population (Lilienfeld, 1994; Lynam, 2002).
Psychopathy is primarily characterised by a lack of empathy, diminished capacity for remorse and poor behavioural control (Cleckley, 1982). However, the range of behaviours that make up the psychopathic personality are wide ranging, and several theorists (e.g., Hare & Neumann, 2008; Marcus, John, & Edens, 2004; Skeem, Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003) have argued that psychopathy is a dimensional construct. Non-clinical samples can therefore be employed for study in terms of degree of psychopathic traits, rather than limiting studies to extreme groups alone (Book & Quinsey, 2004; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Sellbom & Verona, 2007). Karpman (1948) was likely the first investigator to describe the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy, however this differentiation has since been elaborated upon by a number of subsequent influential theorists (Blackburn, 1975; Hare, 1968; Porter, 1996). Both primary and secondary psychopathy are similar in that each subtype is associated with high levels of antisocial and criminal behaviour, however primary and secondary psychopathy are thought to differ in terms of their underlying causes (Hicks, Vaidyanathan, & Patrick, 2010). Primary psychopaths are thought to be incapable of empathy, regardless of environmental influences. They are theorised to have a constitutional deficit that leads to callous and manipulative behaviour, superficial relations, and impoverished negative affect including
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9479 1380; fax: +61 3 9479 1956. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.F. Crowe). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.013 0191-8869/Crown Copyright Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
guilt, fear and anxiety (Dean et al., 2013). Conversely, secondary psychopaths are theorised to initially have a relatively normal capacity for emotional experience. As a result of environmental influences such as parental abuse or trauma, secondary psychopaths develop a proneness to poorly regulated negative affect characterised by high levels of anxiety, emotional distress, hostility, aggression, and impulsive behaviour (Dean et al., 2013). Although support for the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy in clinical populations is well established (e.g., Morrison & Gilbert, 2001; Skeem et al., 2007; Vaughn et al., 2009), Lee and Salekin (2010) suggest that further investigation of the correlates of these subtypes in non-clinical samples is warranted. 1.2. Empathy dysfunction A key aspect of many theories of psychopathy is the suggestion that psychopaths process emotions differently than do non-psychopaths (Williamson, Harpur, & Hare, 1991). In typically developing individuals, Huebner, Dwyer, and Hauser (2009) contend that feelings of guilt and shame about actions that harm others typically compel us to refrain from socially unacceptable behaviours. Cleckley (1982) argues that psychopaths have difficulty understanding and expressing affective cues. These emotional deficits may then interfere with moral socialisation, and subsequently increase susceptibility to engaging in antisocial behaviour (Blair, 1995). Blair has described the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM), which proposes that psychopaths fail to experience the fear and sadness of others as aversive. The VIM contends that there is a neurological system that preferentially responds to negative affect, particularly sad and fearful emotional displays (Blair, 1995). The theory of empathy dysfunction in clinical samples is supported by a number of studies that have shown psychopaths to be significantly less accurate at recognising facial emotion than are non-psychopaths (e.g. Blair et al., 2004; Hastings, Tangney, & Stuewig, 2008; Marsh & Blair, 2008). Hastings et al. (2008) studied 145 male jail inmates and found that psychopathy was associated with impoverished affect recognition, particularly for sad and fearful emotional expressions. Blair et al. (2004) found similar results when 200 psychopathic individuals showed selective impairment for the recognition of fearful expressions. Marsh and Blair (2008) have suggested that such findings could be attributed to dysfunction among antisocial individuals in specific neural structures, most notably the amygdala, which is crucially involved in processing fearful facial affect. Although studies using clinical samples have often demonstrated a link between deficits in processing facial affect and psychopathic traits, the results from non-clinical samples have been equivocal. In a study that investigated 175 undergraduate students (119 females and 56 males), Del Gaizo and Falkenbach (2008) found participants who scored highly on primary psychopathictraits were more accurate at interpreting facial emotions overall, including the fear emotions, with no relationship found between secondary psychopathic traits and affect recognition. Conversely, a study by Montagne et al. (2005) investigated 32 participants from the general population, 16 of whom were selected after scoring highly on psychopathic personality characteristics, and 16 scoring low to act as controls. Montagne and colleagues found that while the two groups did not differ in their overall ability to recognise facial affect, participants scoring highly on psychopathic personality characteristics were significantly less accurate at recognising the fear expression as compared to controls. 1.3. Self-control deficits Several authors (e.g., Morgan & Lilienfeld, 2000; O’Gorman & Baxter, 2002) have suggested that deficits of self-control are an
23
important characteristic of psychopathy, and a significant body of research supports the notion that poor self-control is associated with increased aggression and antisocial behaviour (e.g., Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Roussy & Toupin, 2000). It has also been suggested that self-control failure is expressed differently in primary versus secondary psychopathy (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Consequently, developing an understanding of the extent to which deficits in self-control might predict the emergence of psychopathic traits may be important when considering the aetiology of and interventions for psychopathic behaviours. 1.4. The current study Findings from clinical populations generally support the proposition that some form of affect recognition deficit exists for psychopathic individuals. However, the evidence from non-clinical samples is less robust and the current study seeks to clarify if similar deficits are also evident in these populations. Based on the empathy dysfunction model and given the support in the literature demonstrating that clinical populations of psychopathic individuals are impaired when required to identify facial affect, it was hypothesised that individuals who scored highly on a measure of psychopathic traits (primary and secondary) in a non-clinical sample would show a correlated deficit in accurately recognising facial emotion. Specifically, it was hypothesised that the affect recognition deficit for these individuals would be greater for the fear and sad expressions in particular. Furthermore, it was hypothesised that individuals who scored highly on a measure of primary psychopathy would demonstrate a greater affect recognition deficit as compared to those who scored highly on a measure of secondary psychopathic traits. In contrast, those scoring highly on measures of secondary psychopathy would demonstrate greater deficits of self-control as compared to individuals who scored highly on measures of primary psychopathy. 2. Method 2.1. Procedure and participants Participants were recruited via email, social media and printed advertising. The sample consisted of 479 participants, 26.93% (n = 129) of whom were male. The mean age of the participants was 27.29 years (SD = 11.18, range 18–69 years). The sample included participants from various racial and ethnic backgrounds with 72.7% (n = 348) Caucasian, 11.7% (n = 56) Asian, 3.8% (n = 18) Hispanic, 2.9% (n = 14) African and 9% (n = 43) from other racial backgrounds. 62.2% (n = 298) of participants were full time and 14% (n = 67) were part time university students. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Levenson self-report psychopathy scale (LSRPS; Levenson et al., 1995) The LSRPS is a 26-item two-factor self-report instrument developed for use in non-institutionalised populations. In a factor analysis of the subscales of the LSRPS, Levenson et al. (1995) found two underlying factors that are representative of primary psychopathy (LSRPS I) and secondary psychopathy (LSRPS II). The two factor structure of the LSRPS has been replicated (Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999), and has been found to correlate with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & Newman, 2001). Studies have shown the LSRPS to have good convergent and discriminant validity (Sellbom, 2011) and reliability (Lynam et al., 1999). Internal consistencies of the subscales ranged from
24
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
.63 to .82 in previous studies (Levenson et al., 1995), with Cronbach’s alpha values of .84 (LSRPS I) and .75 (LSRPS II) for the current sample. 2.2.2. Brief self-control scale (BSCS; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) The BSCS is a 13-item questionnaire which assesses dispositional self-control (Tangney et al., 2004). The BSCS has been found to be highly reliable (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005), with previous studies reporting alpha values of between .83 and .85 (Tangney et al., 2004), with a Cronbach’s alpha value for the current sample of .86. 2.2.3. Montreal set of facial displays of emotion (MSFDE; Beaupré & Hess, 2005) The MSFDE is a standardised set of affective facial pictures which has been widely used in facial emotion recognition (FER) research (e.g., Adams, Ambady, Macrae, & Kleck, 2006; Beaupré & Hess, 2005). The set contains expressions of anger, sadness, happiness, fear, disgust and shame. Each expression is displayed at five different levels of intensity (20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%). In order to limit the number of images participants were required to view, and to minimise the drop-out rate, the current study selected only Caucasian (male and female) models from the MSFDE set. Stimuli were presented via computer as greyscale images. All participants viewed a total of 84 images (14 images of each emotion, with two of each emotion presented at 60%, 80% and 100% intensity; and four of each emotion presented at 20% and 40% intensity). Participants were required to select the appropriate emotion label for each image depicted from the six options provided.
3. Results The recruitment process yielded a full sample of 513 individuals. Twenty-seven participants were excluded due to random responding on the facial recognition task, and seven participants were excluded as they had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, had suffered a significant neurological injury (e.g. stroke, tumour), or had impaired vision. Preliminary analyses of assumption testing were conducted to check for normality, linearity and outliers. This cleaning process yielded a final sample of 479 participants. A descriptive summary of the data is presented in Table 1. As expected, participants were more accurate at identifying the happy faces overall, and were least accurate with the fear expression. Also as expected, variability was noted in the mean accuracy for the low vs. high intensity expressions, with greater accuracy for the high intensity faces. Figure 1 presents the mean percentage correct for each expression at low and high intensity, with the greatest accuracy discrepancy noted for the fear and shame expressions. In order to determine if psychopathic traits (LSRPS I and LSRPS II), or self-control were related to facial recognition accuracy, separate bivariate correlations were computed for each variable. Table 2 presents the correlations across variables. Significant negative correlations were found between LSRPS I and accuracy, both for the low and for the high intensity expressions, as well as for overall accuracy; indicating that as the participants LSRPS I scores increased, the accuracy of their affect judgements decreased. Significant negative correlations were also found between LSRPS II and total accuracy overall, as well as for high intensity faces, however no significant correlation was found for low intensity faces. When considering individual expressions, small but significant negative correlations were found between LSRPS I and all expressions except happy, with the greatest deficit noted for the disgust expression. Conversely, LSRPS II was only significantly correlated
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for Primary Psychopathy, Secondary Psychopathy, self-control and facial emotion recognition accuracy. Variable
N
Observed range
Median
M
SD
LSRPS I Total Males Females
479 129 350
16–50 17–49 16–50
26 28 26
26.69 28.57 26.0
6.81 7.46 6.43
LSRPS II Total Males Females
479 129 350
10–36 12–33 10–36
20 20 20
20.44 20.42 20.45
4.84 4.84 4.86
Self-control Total Males Females
479 120 350
15–59 21–58 15–59
39 38 39
38.43 38.54 38.39
8.77 9.25 8.60
Variable
Possible range
Observed range
Accuracy for all facial expressions Total (n = 479) 0–84 19–73 Males (n = 129) 0–84 29–73 Females (n = 350 0–84 19–73
Median
M
SD
M% correct
60 59 60
58.66 57.42 59.11
7.96 8.39 7.75
69.83 68.36 70.37
Accuracy for all facial expressions at high intensity
0–36
8–36
32
31.43
3.76
87.31
Accuracy for all facial expressions at low intensity
0–48
7–38
28
27.22
4.96
56.71
Accuracy for all happy expressions
0–14
8–14
13
12.60
1.42
90.0
Accuracy for all sad expressions Accuracy for all anger expressions
0–14
0–14
11
10.44
2.64
74.57
0–14
1–14
11
10.79
1.92
77.07
Accuracy for all fear expressions
0–14
0–12
7
7.20
1.81
51.43
Accuracy for all shame expressions
0–14
0–13
9
8.57
2.75
61.21
Accuracy for all disgust expressions
0–14
0–14
10
9.05
2.80
64.64
Note: High intensity refers to all expressions at 60%, 80% and 100%. Low intensity refers to expressions at 20% and 40%.
to the disgust and shame expressions. No significant correlations were found between self-control and any of the FER variables. Separate bivariate correlations demonstrated that self-control was significantly negatively correlated with both LSRPS I traits, r(477) = .363, p < .01 and LSRPS II traits, r(477) = .691, p < .01, with a much larger effect found for LSRPS II. A series of multiple regressions were performed to evaluate the degree to which LSRPS I and LSRPS II scores uniquely added to the prediction of accuracy in emotion recognition and self-control. As seen in Table 3, LSRPS I and LSRPS II combined explained only 5.2% of the variance in total FER accuracy, however LSRPS I scores accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in the accuracy of identification of facial expressions overall, as well as for the low and high intensity expressions and the sad and disgust expressions. LSRPS II did not account for a significant amount of unique variance in FER overall, or any specific emotional expression. LSRPS I and LSRPS II combined accounted for 48% of the variance in
25
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fig. 1. Mean percentage accuracy for each expression at high and low intensity.
self-control, however only LSRPS II scores accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in self-control.
4.1. Limitations
4. Discussion This study investigated the relationship between psychopathic traits, self-control and facial affect processing in a non-clinical sample. Consistent with hypothesis one, both primary and secondary psychopathic traits were related to an overall reduction in affect processing accuracy. The findings are inconsistent with Del Gaizo and Falkenbach (2008), who observed the opposite association between affect recognition and sub-clinical primary psychopathic traits. The affect processing deficit observed in the current sample extends upon the findings of Montagne et al. (2005), who reported a relationship between sub-clinical psychopathic traits and a recognition deficit for the fear expression only. The larger sample size of the current study compared to Montagne’s earlier work (n = 479 vs. n = 32 respectively) lends support to a more generalised recognition deficit in non-clinical samples similar to that noted in research using clinical samples (e.g., Hastings et al., 2008). Partially consistent with hypothesis two, individuals with high levels of primary psychopathic traits demonstrated the greatest decoding difficulty for the disgust, sad and shame expressions, with the largest effect size for the former. However, contrary to prediction, although primary psychopathy was significantly associated with a deficit in recognising the fear expression, the effect size for this emotion was the second lowest, with only the happy
Table 2 Pearson’s Correlations between psychopathy (LSRPS I and LSRPS II) and FER accuracy; and self-control and FER accuracy.
Total FER accuracy Accuracy low intensity Accuracy high intensity Accuracy happy Accuracy anger Accuracy fear Accuracy sad Accuracy shame Accuracy disgust * **
p < 0.05 level (2-tailed). p < 0.01 level (2-tailed).
expression posing less decoding difficulty. Those high on secondary psychopathic traits demonstrated difficulty with the identification of the shame and disgust expressions only. These findings are inconsistent with previous research using both clinical samples (Blair et al., 2004), and the work of Montagne et al. (2005) with a non-clinical sample, which demonstrated that fear is the most difficult expression for these individuals to recognise. Consistent with the VIM position (Blair et al., 2004), no relationship was found between either primary or secondary psychopathy and the identification of facial displays of happiness, highlighting a clear delineation between recognition deficits for negative affect when compared to positive affect. Consistent with expectations, and suggesting further support for the dimensional conceptualisation of psychopathic traits (Blackburn & Coid, 1998), primary psychopathic traits were associated with a greater affect recognition deficit as compared to secondary traits, with larger effect sizes observed for total accuracy, expressions at both high and low intensity, and for each individual expression other than happy. As expected, although both primary and secondary psychopathic traits were associated with reduced self-control, the association was greater for secondary traits. Furthermore, secondary traits alone were able to significantly predict self-control deficits.
LSRPS I
LSRPS II
**
**
.228 .196** .224** .001 .126** .101* .152** .150** .205**
.121 .088 .140** .022 .044 .080 .046 .104* .105*
Self-control .042 .043 .031 .016 .022 .039 .027 .085 .012
There are several limitations in the current study that should be noted. Although the MSFDE stimuli set has been widely used in FER research, and is generally well validated, the accuracy discrepancy across the different expressions may have masked some relationships with psychopathic traits, particularly with regard to the fear
Table 3 Regression analyses predicting facial affect recognition and self-control from LSRPS I and LSRPS II scores. Variable
B
SE-B
t
b
p
Total FER LSRPS I LSRPS II
.255 .036
.058 .082
.218 .022
4.36 .436
.000 .663
Low intensity LSRPS I LSRPS II
.143 .001
.037 .052
.197 .001
3.90 .027
.000 .979
High intensity LSRPS I LSRPS II
.112 .037
.028 .039
.202 .048
4.04 .956
.000 .339
Happy LSRPS I LSRPS II
.003 .008
.011 .015
.014 .029
.281 .560
.779 .576
Anger LSRPS I LSRPS II
.038 .007
.014 .020
.134 .017
2.631 .336
.009 .737
Fear LSRPS I LSRPS II
.022 .016
.014 .019
.081 .043
1.592 .835
.112 .404
Sad LSRPS I LSRPS II
.064 .016
.020 .028
.166 .029
3.258 .569
.001 .569
Shame LSRPS I LSRPS II
.052 .025
.020 .029
.130 .045
2.560 .880
.011 .379
Disgust LSRPS I LSRPS II
.082 .009
.021 .029
.199 .015
3.944 .297
.000 .767
.081 1.199
.048 .067
.063 .662
1.687 17.868
.092 .000
Self-control LSRPS I LSRPS II
R2 total .052
.039
.052
.001
.016
.012
.024
.024
.042
.480
26
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
expression. It is possible that a cross-cultural bias may have impacted affect recognition for non-Caucasian participants, as only Caucasian models were used. However, as the majority of participants were Caucasian (72.7%) the impact on group results is likely minimal. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that geographical proximity and cross-cultural contact does appear to reduce the extent of such an in-group advantage in affect recognition (e.g., Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003; Prado et al., 2013). The online administration of the study means that there was a lack of control over the setting in which the study was undertaken by each participant. Although detailed demographic information was collected to enable appropriate exclusion criteria to be applied, the accuracy of the responses to these questions could not be verified. However, the anonymity of online administration may have assisted in mitigating the influence of social desirability that may impact upon participants in an interview setting. When considering generalisability, it is noted that 76% of the sample consisted of undergraduate students, and as such the data cannot be considered to reflect a true community sample. However, student samples can provide useful insights into the phenomena of psychopathy, particularly as they have not been as widely used as forensic samples are this area of research (Williams & Paulhus, 2004).
4.2. Summary and conclusions The results of the current study provide support for the dimensional structure of psychopathy, and the value of measuring subclinical psychopathic traits. The primary/secondary conceptualisation was also supported, with primary traits clearly associated with greater affect processing deficits when compared to secondary traits. Similarly, although as expected both primary and secondary traits were associated with reports of reduced self-control, these deficits were greater for secondary traits. By better understanding the extent to which both primary and secondary psychopathic traits present with differentially associated deficits, specifically neurologically based affect processing deficits or deficits in selfcontrol, rehabilitation programs may be refined to better target affected individuals.
References Adams, R. B., Jr, Ambady, N., Macrae, C. N., & Kleck, R. E. (2006). Emotional expressions forecast approach-avoidance behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 177–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9020-2. Beaupré, M. G., & Hess, U. (2005). Cross-cultural emotion recognition among Canadian ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(3), 355–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022104273656. Blackburn, R. (1975). An empirical classification of psychopathic personality. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 127(5), 456–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/ bjp.127.5.456. Blackburn, R., & Coid, J. W. (1998). Psychopathy and the dimensions of personality disorder in violent offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 129–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00027-0. Blair, R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57(1), 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/00100277(95)00676-P. Blair, R. J. R., Mitchell, D., Peschardt, K., Colledge, E., Leonard, R., Shine, J., et al. (2004). Reduced sensitivity to others’ fearful expressions in psychopathic individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1111–1122. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.008. Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: Cheaters or warrior-hawks? Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 33–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0191-8869(03)00049-7. Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare’s psychopathy checklist-revised? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1021–1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1. Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., Alarid, L. F., & Dunaway, R. G. (1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(2), 123–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022427898035002001. Cleckley, H. M. (1982). The mask of sanity. New American Library.
Dean, A. C., Altstein, L. L., Berman, M. E., Constans, J. I., Sugar, C. A., & McCloskey, M. S. (2013). Secondary psychopathy, but not primary psychopathy, is associated with risky decision-making in noninstitutionalized young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 272–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2012.09.009. Del Gaizo, A. L., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2008). Primary and secondary psychopathictraits and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 206–212. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.019. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). When familiarity breeds accuracy: Cultural exposure and facial emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.276. Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2005). Parenting behaviour and adolescent behavioural and emotional problems: The role of self-control. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(1), 58–69. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/01650250444000333. Fowles, D. C. (2011). Current scientific views of psychopathy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 93–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100611429679. Hare, R. D. (1968). Psychopathy, autonomic functioning, and the orienting response. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73(3), 1–24. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 217–246. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452. Hastings, M. E., Tangney, J. P., & Stuewig, J. (2008). Psychopathy and identification of facial expressions of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1474–1483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.004. Hicks, B. M., Vaidyanathan, U., & Patrick, C. J. (2010). Validating female psychopathy subtypes: Differences in personality, antisocial and violent behavior, substance abuse, trauma, and mental health. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(1), 38–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018135. Huebner, B., Dwyer, S., & Hauser, M. (2009). The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tics.2008.09.006. Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 104, 523–534. Lee, Z., & Salekin, R. T. (2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitutional sample: Differences in primary and secondary subtypes. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(3), 153–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019269. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151. Lilienfeld, S. O. (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review, 14(1), 17–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/02727358(94)90046-9. Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of psychopathy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(1), 99–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10021-3. Lynam, D. R. (2002). Psychopathy from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. In Paul T. Costa, Jr & Thomas A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 325–348). Washington, USA: American Psychological Association. Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 110–132. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730108. Marcus, D. K., John, S. L., & Edens, J. F. (2004). A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(4), 626–635. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-843X.113.4.626. Marsh, A. A., & Blair, R. (2008). Deficits in facial affect recognition among antisocial populations: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(3), 454–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.08.003. Montagne, B., van Honk, J., Kessels, R. P., Frigerio, E., Burt, M., van Zandvoort, M. J., et al. (2005). Reduced efficiency in recognising fear in subjects scoring high on psychopathic personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 5–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.008. Morgan, A. B., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation between antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(1), 113–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0272-7358(98)00096-8. Morrison, D., & Gilbert, P. (2001). Social rank, shame and anger in primary and secondary psychopaths. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 12(2), 330–356. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585180110056867. Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2014). Antisociality and the construct of psychopathy: Data from across the globe. Journal of Personality. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12127. O’Gorman, J. G., & Baxter, E. (2002). Self-control as a personality measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 533–539. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00055-1. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6. Porter, S. (1996). Without conscience or without active conscience? The etiology of psychopathy revisited. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(2), 179–189. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/1359-1789(95)00010-0. Prado, C., Mellor, D., Byrne, L. K., Wilson, C., Xu, X., & Liu, H. (2013). Facial emotion recognition: A cross-cultural comparison of Chinese, Chinese living in Australia,
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27 and Anglo-Australians. Motivation and Emotion, 38(3), 420–428. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9383-0. Roussy, S., & Toupin, J. (2000). Behavioral inhibition deficits in juvenile psychopaths. Aggressive Behavior, 26(6), 413–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/10982337(200011)26:6<413::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-Q. Sellbom, M. (2011). Elaborating on the construct validity of the Levenson self-report psychopathy scale in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Law and Human Behavior, 35(6), 440–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9249x. Sellbom, M., & Verona, E. (2007). Neuropsychological correlates of psychopathic traits in a non-incarcerated sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 276–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.04.001. 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. http://dx.doi.org/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
27
psychopathy and their implications for risk assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(5), 513–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00098-8. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.00223506.2004.00263.x. 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. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1541204009333792. Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 765–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.004. Williamson, S., Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1991). Abnormal processing of affective words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 28(3), 260–273. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb02192.x.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Examining relationships between facial emotion recognition, self-control, and psychopathic traits in a non-clinical sample Catherine E. Prado, Matt S. Treeby, Simon F. Crowe ⇑ La Trobe University, School of Psychological Science, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 December 2014 Received in revised form 8 February 2015 Accepted 11 February 2015 Available online 3 March 2015 Keywords: Psychopathy Psychopathic personality traits Facial emotion recognition Primary and secondary psychopathy Self-control deficits Emotion perception Non-clinical sample
a b s t r a c t Although psychopathy is a low prevalence disorder, individuals with sub-clinical psychopathic traits have been shown to reside within the community. One account of psychopathy proposes that deficits in selfcontrol play a causal role. Other theorists propose that psychopathy-related antisocial behaviour can be attributed to a constitutional deficit of empathy, resulting from an inability to interpret and respond to the affective cues of others. These theoretical perspectives may both be relevant if psychopathy is understood as a dimensional construct, with primary psychopathy the consequence of a neurological vulnerability to emotional deficits, and secondary psychopathy reflecting an environmental adaptation and subsequent failure of self-control. Using a non-clinical sample (n = 479), this study examined the relationship between sub-clinical psychopathic traits, self-control and the identification of facial emotion. Both primary and secondary psychopathic traits were associated with reduced accuracy in identifying facial affect, with more pronounced impairments seen for primary psychopathy. While both primary and secondary psychopathic traits were found to be related to deficits in dispositional self-control, the effect was significantly greater for secondary psychopathy. Crown Copyright Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. A continuum of psychopathic traits
Few clinical conditions are considered to be as malignant as psychopathy, and as a result it has been extensively studied (Skeem, Johansson, Andershed, Kerr, & Louden, 2007). Despite this work, disagreement persists regarding the causes and underlying features of the disorder (Fowles, 2011). Some investigators have suggested the phenomenology of the disorder is heterogeneous, with different developmental routes contributing to the expression of subtypes of psychopathy (Skeem et al., 2007; Vaughn, Edens, Howard, & Smith, 2009). While the majority of research in this area has been undertaken using clinical populations, usually drawn from forensic settings (Neumann, Hare, & Pardini, 2014), it is now well established that some individuals with high levels of psychopathic traits live successfully within the community (Cleckley, 1982). Several researchers (e.g., Lilienfeld, 1994; Lilienfeld, 1998; Lynam, 2002) have argued that rather than existing as an allor-none category, personality traits associated with psychopathic behaviours may actually exist on a continuum, with less extreme variations of the condition observed across the wider population (Lilienfeld, 1994; Lynam, 2002).
Psychopathy is primarily characterised by a lack of empathy, diminished capacity for remorse and poor behavioural control (Cleckley, 1982). However, the range of behaviours that make up the psychopathic personality are wide ranging, and several theorists (e.g., Hare & Neumann, 2008; Marcus, John, & Edens, 2004; Skeem, Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003) have argued that psychopathy is a dimensional construct. Non-clinical samples can therefore be employed for study in terms of degree of psychopathic traits, rather than limiting studies to extreme groups alone (Book & Quinsey, 2004; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Sellbom & Verona, 2007). Karpman (1948) was likely the first investigator to describe the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy, however this differentiation has since been elaborated upon by a number of subsequent influential theorists (Blackburn, 1975; Hare, 1968; Porter, 1996). Both primary and secondary psychopathy are similar in that each subtype is associated with high levels of antisocial and criminal behaviour, however primary and secondary psychopathy are thought to differ in terms of their underlying causes (Hicks, Vaidyanathan, & Patrick, 2010). Primary psychopaths are thought to be incapable of empathy, regardless of environmental influences. They are theorised to have a constitutional deficit that leads to callous and manipulative behaviour, superficial relations, and impoverished negative affect including
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9479 1380; fax: +61 3 9479 1956. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.F. Crowe). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.013 0191-8869/Crown Copyright Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
guilt, fear and anxiety (Dean et al., 2013). Conversely, secondary psychopaths are theorised to initially have a relatively normal capacity for emotional experience. As a result of environmental influences such as parental abuse or trauma, secondary psychopaths develop a proneness to poorly regulated negative affect characterised by high levels of anxiety, emotional distress, hostility, aggression, and impulsive behaviour (Dean et al., 2013). Although support for the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy in clinical populations is well established (e.g., Morrison & Gilbert, 2001; Skeem et al., 2007; Vaughn et al., 2009), Lee and Salekin (2010) suggest that further investigation of the correlates of these subtypes in non-clinical samples is warranted. 1.2. Empathy dysfunction A key aspect of many theories of psychopathy is the suggestion that psychopaths process emotions differently than do non-psychopaths (Williamson, Harpur, & Hare, 1991). In typically developing individuals, Huebner, Dwyer, and Hauser (2009) contend that feelings of guilt and shame about actions that harm others typically compel us to refrain from socially unacceptable behaviours. Cleckley (1982) argues that psychopaths have difficulty understanding and expressing affective cues. These emotional deficits may then interfere with moral socialisation, and subsequently increase susceptibility to engaging in antisocial behaviour (Blair, 1995). Blair has described the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM), which proposes that psychopaths fail to experience the fear and sadness of others as aversive. The VIM contends that there is a neurological system that preferentially responds to negative affect, particularly sad and fearful emotional displays (Blair, 1995). The theory of empathy dysfunction in clinical samples is supported by a number of studies that have shown psychopaths to be significantly less accurate at recognising facial emotion than are non-psychopaths (e.g. Blair et al., 2004; Hastings, Tangney, & Stuewig, 2008; Marsh & Blair, 2008). Hastings et al. (2008) studied 145 male jail inmates and found that psychopathy was associated with impoverished affect recognition, particularly for sad and fearful emotional expressions. Blair et al. (2004) found similar results when 200 psychopathic individuals showed selective impairment for the recognition of fearful expressions. Marsh and Blair (2008) have suggested that such findings could be attributed to dysfunction among antisocial individuals in specific neural structures, most notably the amygdala, which is crucially involved in processing fearful facial affect. Although studies using clinical samples have often demonstrated a link between deficits in processing facial affect and psychopathic traits, the results from non-clinical samples have been equivocal. In a study that investigated 175 undergraduate students (119 females and 56 males), Del Gaizo and Falkenbach (2008) found participants who scored highly on primary psychopathictraits were more accurate at interpreting facial emotions overall, including the fear emotions, with no relationship found between secondary psychopathic traits and affect recognition. Conversely, a study by Montagne et al. (2005) investigated 32 participants from the general population, 16 of whom were selected after scoring highly on psychopathic personality characteristics, and 16 scoring low to act as controls. Montagne and colleagues found that while the two groups did not differ in their overall ability to recognise facial affect, participants scoring highly on psychopathic personality characteristics were significantly less accurate at recognising the fear expression as compared to controls. 1.3. Self-control deficits Several authors (e.g., Morgan & Lilienfeld, 2000; O’Gorman & Baxter, 2002) have suggested that deficits of self-control are an
23
important characteristic of psychopathy, and a significant body of research supports the notion that poor self-control is associated with increased aggression and antisocial behaviour (e.g., Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Roussy & Toupin, 2000). It has also been suggested that self-control failure is expressed differently in primary versus secondary psychopathy (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Consequently, developing an understanding of the extent to which deficits in self-control might predict the emergence of psychopathic traits may be important when considering the aetiology of and interventions for psychopathic behaviours. 1.4. The current study Findings from clinical populations generally support the proposition that some form of affect recognition deficit exists for psychopathic individuals. However, the evidence from non-clinical samples is less robust and the current study seeks to clarify if similar deficits are also evident in these populations. Based on the empathy dysfunction model and given the support in the literature demonstrating that clinical populations of psychopathic individuals are impaired when required to identify facial affect, it was hypothesised that individuals who scored highly on a measure of psychopathic traits (primary and secondary) in a non-clinical sample would show a correlated deficit in accurately recognising facial emotion. Specifically, it was hypothesised that the affect recognition deficit for these individuals would be greater for the fear and sad expressions in particular. Furthermore, it was hypothesised that individuals who scored highly on a measure of primary psychopathy would demonstrate a greater affect recognition deficit as compared to those who scored highly on a measure of secondary psychopathic traits. In contrast, those scoring highly on measures of secondary psychopathy would demonstrate greater deficits of self-control as compared to individuals who scored highly on measures of primary psychopathy. 2. Method 2.1. Procedure and participants Participants were recruited via email, social media and printed advertising. The sample consisted of 479 participants, 26.93% (n = 129) of whom were male. The mean age of the participants was 27.29 years (SD = 11.18, range 18–69 years). The sample included participants from various racial and ethnic backgrounds with 72.7% (n = 348) Caucasian, 11.7% (n = 56) Asian, 3.8% (n = 18) Hispanic, 2.9% (n = 14) African and 9% (n = 43) from other racial backgrounds. 62.2% (n = 298) of participants were full time and 14% (n = 67) were part time university students. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Levenson self-report psychopathy scale (LSRPS; Levenson et al., 1995) The LSRPS is a 26-item two-factor self-report instrument developed for use in non-institutionalised populations. In a factor analysis of the subscales of the LSRPS, Levenson et al. (1995) found two underlying factors that are representative of primary psychopathy (LSRPS I) and secondary psychopathy (LSRPS II). The two factor structure of the LSRPS has been replicated (Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999), and has been found to correlate with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & Newman, 2001). Studies have shown the LSRPS to have good convergent and discriminant validity (Sellbom, 2011) and reliability (Lynam et al., 1999). Internal consistencies of the subscales ranged from
24
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
.63 to .82 in previous studies (Levenson et al., 1995), with Cronbach’s alpha values of .84 (LSRPS I) and .75 (LSRPS II) for the current sample. 2.2.2. Brief self-control scale (BSCS; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) The BSCS is a 13-item questionnaire which assesses dispositional self-control (Tangney et al., 2004). The BSCS has been found to be highly reliable (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005), with previous studies reporting alpha values of between .83 and .85 (Tangney et al., 2004), with a Cronbach’s alpha value for the current sample of .86. 2.2.3. Montreal set of facial displays of emotion (MSFDE; Beaupré & Hess, 2005) The MSFDE is a standardised set of affective facial pictures which has been widely used in facial emotion recognition (FER) research (e.g., Adams, Ambady, Macrae, & Kleck, 2006; Beaupré & Hess, 2005). The set contains expressions of anger, sadness, happiness, fear, disgust and shame. Each expression is displayed at five different levels of intensity (20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%). In order to limit the number of images participants were required to view, and to minimise the drop-out rate, the current study selected only Caucasian (male and female) models from the MSFDE set. Stimuli were presented via computer as greyscale images. All participants viewed a total of 84 images (14 images of each emotion, with two of each emotion presented at 60%, 80% and 100% intensity; and four of each emotion presented at 20% and 40% intensity). Participants were required to select the appropriate emotion label for each image depicted from the six options provided.
3. Results The recruitment process yielded a full sample of 513 individuals. Twenty-seven participants were excluded due to random responding on the facial recognition task, and seven participants were excluded as they had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, had suffered a significant neurological injury (e.g. stroke, tumour), or had impaired vision. Preliminary analyses of assumption testing were conducted to check for normality, linearity and outliers. This cleaning process yielded a final sample of 479 participants. A descriptive summary of the data is presented in Table 1. As expected, participants were more accurate at identifying the happy faces overall, and were least accurate with the fear expression. Also as expected, variability was noted in the mean accuracy for the low vs. high intensity expressions, with greater accuracy for the high intensity faces. Figure 1 presents the mean percentage correct for each expression at low and high intensity, with the greatest accuracy discrepancy noted for the fear and shame expressions. In order to determine if psychopathic traits (LSRPS I and LSRPS II), or self-control were related to facial recognition accuracy, separate bivariate correlations were computed for each variable. Table 2 presents the correlations across variables. Significant negative correlations were found between LSRPS I and accuracy, both for the low and for the high intensity expressions, as well as for overall accuracy; indicating that as the participants LSRPS I scores increased, the accuracy of their affect judgements decreased. Significant negative correlations were also found between LSRPS II and total accuracy overall, as well as for high intensity faces, however no significant correlation was found for low intensity faces. When considering individual expressions, small but significant negative correlations were found between LSRPS I and all expressions except happy, with the greatest deficit noted for the disgust expression. Conversely, LSRPS II was only significantly correlated
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for Primary Psychopathy, Secondary Psychopathy, self-control and facial emotion recognition accuracy. Variable
N
Observed range
Median
M
SD
LSRPS I Total Males Females
479 129 350
16–50 17–49 16–50
26 28 26
26.69 28.57 26.0
6.81 7.46 6.43
LSRPS II Total Males Females
479 129 350
10–36 12–33 10–36
20 20 20
20.44 20.42 20.45
4.84 4.84 4.86
Self-control Total Males Females
479 120 350
15–59 21–58 15–59
39 38 39
38.43 38.54 38.39
8.77 9.25 8.60
Variable
Possible range
Observed range
Accuracy for all facial expressions Total (n = 479) 0–84 19–73 Males (n = 129) 0–84 29–73 Females (n = 350 0–84 19–73
Median
M
SD
M% correct
60 59 60
58.66 57.42 59.11
7.96 8.39 7.75
69.83 68.36 70.37
Accuracy for all facial expressions at high intensity
0–36
8–36
32
31.43
3.76
87.31
Accuracy for all facial expressions at low intensity
0–48
7–38
28
27.22
4.96
56.71
Accuracy for all happy expressions
0–14
8–14
13
12.60
1.42
90.0
Accuracy for all sad expressions Accuracy for all anger expressions
0–14
0–14
11
10.44
2.64
74.57
0–14
1–14
11
10.79
1.92
77.07
Accuracy for all fear expressions
0–14
0–12
7
7.20
1.81
51.43
Accuracy for all shame expressions
0–14
0–13
9
8.57
2.75
61.21
Accuracy for all disgust expressions
0–14
0–14
10
9.05
2.80
64.64
Note: High intensity refers to all expressions at 60%, 80% and 100%. Low intensity refers to expressions at 20% and 40%.
to the disgust and shame expressions. No significant correlations were found between self-control and any of the FER variables. Separate bivariate correlations demonstrated that self-control was significantly negatively correlated with both LSRPS I traits, r(477) = .363, p < .01 and LSRPS II traits, r(477) = .691, p < .01, with a much larger effect found for LSRPS II. A series of multiple regressions were performed to evaluate the degree to which LSRPS I and LSRPS II scores uniquely added to the prediction of accuracy in emotion recognition and self-control. As seen in Table 3, LSRPS I and LSRPS II combined explained only 5.2% of the variance in total FER accuracy, however LSRPS I scores accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in the accuracy of identification of facial expressions overall, as well as for the low and high intensity expressions and the sad and disgust expressions. LSRPS II did not account for a significant amount of unique variance in FER overall, or any specific emotional expression. LSRPS I and LSRPS II combined accounted for 48% of the variance in
25
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fig. 1. Mean percentage accuracy for each expression at high and low intensity.
self-control, however only LSRPS II scores accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in self-control.
4.1. Limitations
4. Discussion This study investigated the relationship between psychopathic traits, self-control and facial affect processing in a non-clinical sample. Consistent with hypothesis one, both primary and secondary psychopathic traits were related to an overall reduction in affect processing accuracy. The findings are inconsistent with Del Gaizo and Falkenbach (2008), who observed the opposite association between affect recognition and sub-clinical primary psychopathic traits. The affect processing deficit observed in the current sample extends upon the findings of Montagne et al. (2005), who reported a relationship between sub-clinical psychopathic traits and a recognition deficit for the fear expression only. The larger sample size of the current study compared to Montagne’s earlier work (n = 479 vs. n = 32 respectively) lends support to a more generalised recognition deficit in non-clinical samples similar to that noted in research using clinical samples (e.g., Hastings et al., 2008). Partially consistent with hypothesis two, individuals with high levels of primary psychopathic traits demonstrated the greatest decoding difficulty for the disgust, sad and shame expressions, with the largest effect size for the former. However, contrary to prediction, although primary psychopathy was significantly associated with a deficit in recognising the fear expression, the effect size for this emotion was the second lowest, with only the happy
Table 2 Pearson’s Correlations between psychopathy (LSRPS I and LSRPS II) and FER accuracy; and self-control and FER accuracy.
Total FER accuracy Accuracy low intensity Accuracy high intensity Accuracy happy Accuracy anger Accuracy fear Accuracy sad Accuracy shame Accuracy disgust * **
p < 0.05 level (2-tailed). p < 0.01 level (2-tailed).
expression posing less decoding difficulty. Those high on secondary psychopathic traits demonstrated difficulty with the identification of the shame and disgust expressions only. These findings are inconsistent with previous research using both clinical samples (Blair et al., 2004), and the work of Montagne et al. (2005) with a non-clinical sample, which demonstrated that fear is the most difficult expression for these individuals to recognise. Consistent with the VIM position (Blair et al., 2004), no relationship was found between either primary or secondary psychopathy and the identification of facial displays of happiness, highlighting a clear delineation between recognition deficits for negative affect when compared to positive affect. Consistent with expectations, and suggesting further support for the dimensional conceptualisation of psychopathic traits (Blackburn & Coid, 1998), primary psychopathic traits were associated with a greater affect recognition deficit as compared to secondary traits, with larger effect sizes observed for total accuracy, expressions at both high and low intensity, and for each individual expression other than happy. As expected, although both primary and secondary psychopathic traits were associated with reduced self-control, the association was greater for secondary traits. Furthermore, secondary traits alone were able to significantly predict self-control deficits.
LSRPS I
LSRPS II
**
**
.228 .196** .224** .001 .126** .101* .152** .150** .205**
.121 .088 .140** .022 .044 .080 .046 .104* .105*
Self-control .042 .043 .031 .016 .022 .039 .027 .085 .012
There are several limitations in the current study that should be noted. Although the MSFDE stimuli set has been widely used in FER research, and is generally well validated, the accuracy discrepancy across the different expressions may have masked some relationships with psychopathic traits, particularly with regard to the fear
Table 3 Regression analyses predicting facial affect recognition and self-control from LSRPS I and LSRPS II scores. Variable
B
SE-B
t
b
p
Total FER LSRPS I LSRPS II
.255 .036
.058 .082
.218 .022
4.36 .436
.000 .663
Low intensity LSRPS I LSRPS II
.143 .001
.037 .052
.197 .001
3.90 .027
.000 .979
High intensity LSRPS I LSRPS II
.112 .037
.028 .039
.202 .048
4.04 .956
.000 .339
Happy LSRPS I LSRPS II
.003 .008
.011 .015
.014 .029
.281 .560
.779 .576
Anger LSRPS I LSRPS II
.038 .007
.014 .020
.134 .017
2.631 .336
.009 .737
Fear LSRPS I LSRPS II
.022 .016
.014 .019
.081 .043
1.592 .835
.112 .404
Sad LSRPS I LSRPS II
.064 .016
.020 .028
.166 .029
3.258 .569
.001 .569
Shame LSRPS I LSRPS II
.052 .025
.020 .029
.130 .045
2.560 .880
.011 .379
Disgust LSRPS I LSRPS II
.082 .009
.021 .029
.199 .015
3.944 .297
.000 .767
.081 1.199
.048 .067
.063 .662
1.687 17.868
.092 .000
Self-control LSRPS I LSRPS II
R2 total .052
.039
.052
.001
.016
.012
.024
.024
.042
.480
26
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27
expression. It is possible that a cross-cultural bias may have impacted affect recognition for non-Caucasian participants, as only Caucasian models were used. However, as the majority of participants were Caucasian (72.7%) the impact on group results is likely minimal. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that geographical proximity and cross-cultural contact does appear to reduce the extent of such an in-group advantage in affect recognition (e.g., Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003; Prado et al., 2013). The online administration of the study means that there was a lack of control over the setting in which the study was undertaken by each participant. Although detailed demographic information was collected to enable appropriate exclusion criteria to be applied, the accuracy of the responses to these questions could not be verified. However, the anonymity of online administration may have assisted in mitigating the influence of social desirability that may impact upon participants in an interview setting. When considering generalisability, it is noted that 76% of the sample consisted of undergraduate students, and as such the data cannot be considered to reflect a true community sample. However, student samples can provide useful insights into the phenomena of psychopathy, particularly as they have not been as widely used as forensic samples are this area of research (Williams & Paulhus, 2004).
4.2. Summary and conclusions The results of the current study provide support for the dimensional structure of psychopathy, and the value of measuring subclinical psychopathic traits. The primary/secondary conceptualisation was also supported, with primary traits clearly associated with greater affect processing deficits when compared to secondary traits. Similarly, although as expected both primary and secondary traits were associated with reports of reduced self-control, these deficits were greater for secondary traits. By better understanding the extent to which both primary and secondary psychopathic traits present with differentially associated deficits, specifically neurologically based affect processing deficits or deficits in selfcontrol, rehabilitation programs may be refined to better target affected individuals.
References Adams, R. B., Jr, Ambady, N., Macrae, C. N., & Kleck, R. E. (2006). Emotional expressions forecast approach-avoidance behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 177–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9020-2. Beaupré, M. G., & Hess, U. (2005). Cross-cultural emotion recognition among Canadian ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(3), 355–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022104273656. Blackburn, R. (1975). An empirical classification of psychopathic personality. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 127(5), 456–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/ bjp.127.5.456. Blackburn, R., & Coid, J. W. (1998). Psychopathy and the dimensions of personality disorder in violent offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 129–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00027-0. Blair, R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57(1), 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/00100277(95)00676-P. Blair, R. J. R., Mitchell, D., Peschardt, K., Colledge, E., Leonard, R., Shine, J., et al. (2004). Reduced sensitivity to others’ fearful expressions in psychopathic individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1111–1122. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.008. Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: Cheaters or warrior-hawks? Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 33–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0191-8869(03)00049-7. Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare’s psychopathy checklist-revised? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1021–1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1. Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., Alarid, L. F., & Dunaway, R. G. (1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(2), 123–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022427898035002001. Cleckley, H. M. (1982). The mask of sanity. New American Library.
Dean, A. C., Altstein, L. L., Berman, M. E., Constans, J. I., Sugar, C. A., & McCloskey, M. S. (2013). Secondary psychopathy, but not primary psychopathy, is associated with risky decision-making in noninstitutionalized young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 272–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2012.09.009. Del Gaizo, A. L., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2008). Primary and secondary psychopathictraits and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 206–212. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.019. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). When familiarity breeds accuracy: Cultural exposure and facial emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.276. Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2005). Parenting behaviour and adolescent behavioural and emotional problems: The role of self-control. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(1), 58–69. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/01650250444000333. Fowles, D. C. (2011). Current scientific views of psychopathy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 93–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100611429679. Hare, R. D. (1968). Psychopathy, autonomic functioning, and the orienting response. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73(3), 1–24. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 217–246. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452. Hastings, M. E., Tangney, J. P., & Stuewig, J. (2008). Psychopathy and identification of facial expressions of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1474–1483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.004. Hicks, B. M., Vaidyanathan, U., & Patrick, C. J. (2010). Validating female psychopathy subtypes: Differences in personality, antisocial and violent behavior, substance abuse, trauma, and mental health. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(1), 38–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018135. Huebner, B., Dwyer, S., & Hauser, M. (2009). The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tics.2008.09.006. Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 104, 523–534. Lee, Z., & Salekin, R. T. (2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitutional sample: Differences in primary and secondary subtypes. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(3), 153–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019269. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151. Lilienfeld, S. O. (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review, 14(1), 17–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/02727358(94)90046-9. Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of psychopathy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(1), 99–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10021-3. Lynam, D. R. (2002). Psychopathy from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. In Paul T. Costa, Jr & Thomas A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 325–348). Washington, USA: American Psychological Association. Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 110–132. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730108. Marcus, D. K., John, S. L., & Edens, J. F. (2004). A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(4), 626–635. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-843X.113.4.626. Marsh, A. A., & Blair, R. (2008). Deficits in facial affect recognition among antisocial populations: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(3), 454–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.08.003. Montagne, B., van Honk, J., Kessels, R. P., Frigerio, E., Burt, M., van Zandvoort, M. J., et al. (2005). Reduced efficiency in recognising fear in subjects scoring high on psychopathic personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 5–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.008. Morgan, A. B., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation between antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(1), 113–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0272-7358(98)00096-8. Morrison, D., & Gilbert, P. (2001). Social rank, shame and anger in primary and secondary psychopaths. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 12(2), 330–356. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585180110056867. Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2014). Antisociality and the construct of psychopathy: Data from across the globe. Journal of Personality. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12127. O’Gorman, J. G., & Baxter, E. (2002). Self-control as a personality measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 533–539. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00055-1. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6. Porter, S. (1996). Without conscience or without active conscience? The etiology of psychopathy revisited. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(2), 179–189. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/1359-1789(95)00010-0. Prado, C., Mellor, D., Byrne, L. K., Wilson, C., Xu, X., & Liu, H. (2013). Facial emotion recognition: A cross-cultural comparison of Chinese, Chinese living in Australia,
C.E. Prado et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 80 (2015) 22–27 and Anglo-Australians. Motivation and Emotion, 38(3), 420–428. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9383-0. Roussy, S., & Toupin, J. (2000). Behavioral inhibition deficits in juvenile psychopaths. Aggressive Behavior, 26(6), 413–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/10982337(200011)26:6<413::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-Q. Sellbom, M. (2011). Elaborating on the construct validity of the Levenson self-report psychopathy scale in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Law and Human Behavior, 35(6), 440–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9249x. Sellbom, M., & Verona, E. (2007). Neuropsychological correlates of psychopathic traits in a non-incarcerated sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 276–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.04.001. 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. http://dx.doi.org/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
27
psychopathy and their implications for risk assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(5), 513–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00098-8. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.00223506.2004.00263.x. 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. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1541204009333792. Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 765–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.004. Williamson, S., Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1991). Abnormal processing of affective words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 28(3), 260–273. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb02192.x.