Empathy Faking in Psychopathic Offenders: The Vulnerability of Empathy Measures
- 862 Downloads
The incapacity of individuals to experience empathy has long been linked to heightened risks of antisocial acts being perpetrated without remorse. Psychologists frequently consider deficits in empathy in the context of risk assessments and other clinical appraisals, such as the amenability to treatment. When evaluated, offenders—especially those with substantial psychopathic traits—may be motivated to mask their empathic deficits to avoid being characterized as callous and cold-blooded toward the victims of their crimes. The current study is the first known investigation with an offender population to simulate empathy via positive impression management (PIM). Using a mixed between- and within-subjects design, 81 male detainees were categorized into a Low, Moderate, or High Psychopathy group, based on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). For the within-subjects component, all offenders answered empathy questionnaires under genuine and PIM conditions. In the genuine condition, results indicate that offenders—irrespective of psychopathy—possessed cognitive empathy, but not affective empathy. In the PIM condition, offenders easily simulated high levels of empathy. Potential approaches to the assessment of simulated empathy in offender populations are explored, including a possible indicator for simulated affective empathy.
KeywordsEmpathy Psychopathy Positive impression management Simulation Offenders
Conflict of Interest
Emily V. Robinson, Richard Rogers and their institution do not believe they have any conflicts of interest to declare concerning any financial, academic, personal, political, employment, or funding that could have influenced this work.
All of the current study’s protocols, materials, and procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of North Texas. In accordance with the UNT IRB, all experiment participants received informed consent prior to the administration of any measures.
- Blair, J., Mitchell, D., & Blair, K. (2005). The psychopath: Emotion and the brain. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. Louis: St Mosby.Google Scholar
- Hare, R. D. (1991). The hare psychopathy checklist—revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
- Hare, R. D. (2003). The hare psychopathy checklist—revised (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
- Jensen, S. H., & Jewell, C. A. (1988). The sex offender experts. Prosecutor. Fall: 13–20.Google Scholar
- Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic personality inventory—revised: professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Lyon, D. R., Hart, S. D., & Webster, C. D. (2001). Violence and risk assessment. In R. A. Schuller & J. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Introduction to psychology and law: Canadian perspectives (pp. 314–350). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
- Marshall, W. L., Marshall, L. E., & Serran, G. A. (2009). Empathy and offending behavior. In M. McMurran & R. Howard (Eds.), Personality, personality disorder and violence: An evidence based approach (pp. 229–244). Blackwell: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Mullins-Nelson, J. L., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. R. (2006). Psychopathy, empathy, and perspective-taking ability in a community sample: implications for the successful psychopathy concept. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 5(2), 133–149. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2006.10471238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Paulhus, D. (1998). Paulhus deception scales (PDS): The balanced inventory of desirable responding—7: User’s manual. North Tanawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
- Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Viaglione, G. D. & Barnett, M. A. (1999, June). Measuring a new dimension of empathy: The empathic anger scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Denver, CO.Google Scholar