Category: Psychopaths

Part 1:

Psychopathy is a personality disease, that can incorporate various attributes. This may include antisocial or disruptive behavior (PowerPoint). They have the potential to harm or manipulate others to get through life guaranteeing their demands are fitted (Hare) Psychopaths lack conscience in compassion and tend to possess selfish tendencies and take their desires (Hare). They won’t alter their actions based on community expectations. Psychopaths disrupt civilization’s expectations without guilt and are unable to feel emotions (Hare).

Part 2:

Discuss each of the 9 issues below. First, you will need to answer the question posed in the bullet point in a concise, yet detailed couple of paragraphs. Make sure you use APA format to cite where you obtained the information. [Note. You will feel like you are constantly citing materials such as Hare throughout this Assignment. That is fine and is what I am expecting.] Second, you will then draw from video material on Arthur Shawcross (you can also do additional research on his case) and argue whether or not you feel his behavior/affect/etc. meets the criteria discussed in the corresponding bullet point just discussed. Be very specific in making direct links between each of the bullet points and Shawcross’ particular case. For example, does Shawcross demonstrate verbal vomit during his interviews? This will also require a few paragraphs.

For clarity, it would be helpful for you to arrange your answers in bullet format.

1. Where (in what circumstances) can we encounter a psychopath?

Psychopathy can strike everyone, and we’re all exposed. Nearly all people encounter a psychopath and can be seen in the community and the criminal justice system(Hare) Various psychopaths are criminals and are often seen as serial killers. However, some can embody charismatic qualities within our civilization. Their charismatic charm has the potential to decline their chances of being convicted. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all psychopaths are murders. Several psychopaths have other ways of manipulating others without the need to kill. We have an increased chance to lose everything to a ‘regular’ person, then a criminal(Hare)

Through the eyes of society, Arthur Shawcross seemed like a regular guy (Video) He had a decent place, a stable job, and a wife. People within our society would never expect that he was a dangerous serial killer. For example, during the undercover work, cops would “confide” in Shawcross in the local shops and discuss the case he was associated with. He was amused that the police were so clueless as to who they were sharing the case details. While Shawcross would visit the street corner, none of the prostitutes felt scared. He seemed like a nice, old man who didn’t represent a threat.

2. How prevalent are psychopaths in our society? (give specific statistics)

There are quite a few psychopaths in our society. There are at least two million psychopaths in North America alone. This helps prove the statement that we all have encountered a psychopath. In New York alone, psychopaths represent at least 100,000 citizens (Hare) In general, there are likely 2 percent of psychopaths in the world(Hare) In the criminal population, there are at least 20 percent of males who are psychopaths (PowerPoint) At least 90 percent of serial killers are identified as psychopaths (PowerPoint)

Based on the data and information about Arthur Shawcross, I believe that he resembles a psychopath. He meets the criteria for the qualities that a psychopath would represent. Typically, males are more likely to identify as a psychopath. For the majority of the prison population, those who identify as serial killers are more likely to identify as psychopaths. Arthur Shawcross’s behavior fits the criteria of killing 12 people which deems him a serial killer. He was convicted and represents psychopathic tendencies.

3. Are psychopaths mad (insane) or Bad in your opinion? Briefly state why you feel this way?

In my opinion, psychopaths are bad and not mad. Their actions are an outcome of their incapability to sympathize or consider feelings other than their own. Their actions arise from potential damage to the frontal cortex of their brain (Hare) Psychopaths are not considered insane, because they don’t experience hallucinations. They are fully aware and conscious of their actions. Psychopaths are competent to manage their actions. Their behaviors are based on their needs that must be met. (Hare) They are conscious of perceived civil morality. If psychopaths were convicted, they are sent to prison rather than a psychic hospital. They consider themselves superior over other people. They often think of themselves as the center and perceive others as incompetent. Insanity means they were unaware of their actions during time the crime was committed. If they were insane, they would have no recollection of the details of the crime. They would’ve fallen into a blackout instance where they forget what happened. Psychopaths are the complete opposite.

Arthur Shawcross fits this criterion and he was fully aware of his crimes. Shawcross didn’t consider the victim’s loss or emotions. He had no remorse for his actions and justified his actions claiming he had no choice. He justified killing his victims and would call himself the real victim. He caught one of his victims stealing from him and that justified his actions. Shawcross knew his actions were not acceptable in society, but that didn’t impact his decisions. He was focused on his impulses on what needed to be done at that moment to feed his ego. He recalls his crimes and often provides detailed descriptions of his crimes. He would often discuss eating parts of his victims, or worse. Shawcross would often visit the spots where he would dump his victims. The only victims that he would not describe were the children. He admitted to raping and killing his first two victims. However, he would refuse to go into detail about these crimes. Often, he would go back to his dump spots and marvel at his work. In Watertown, he was seen eating ice cream and gazing at the bridge where he dumped the little girl. Later on, he was found parked near another dumping spot of a prostitute. He admired his work and would stick around.

4. Should psychopaths be provided treatment or sent to Corrections? Briefly state why do you feel this way?

I believe that psychopaths should be sent to Correctional facilities. Psychopaths are fully knowledgeable of their actions and the outcomes. They fit the standards of the psychiatric and legal standards for sanity (Hare) Psychopaths cannot be treated because they are unable to process emotions. However, what they lack in emotions, they are capable of coercing people. It would be horrendous if a psychopath was sent to a treatment center because they are manipulative. If a psychopath were placed into a treatment facility, they could potentially cause harm to others by targeting their emotions (Hare)

Shawcross exemplifies a psychopath based on his tactics during his trial. During his first sentencing, Shawcross made a deal to lessen his sentence if he provided information about another case. Shawcross was sent to prison for the crimes of those two children for 25 years. However, based on his good behavior, he was given parole based on good behavior in prison. Rather than spending 25 years, he only served 15 years While Shawcross was charged for the murder of the later victims, he attempted to plea for an insanity defense. His motive was to lessen his sentence and manipulate the court deemed that he is mentally unfit and hopes to seek treatment. The prosecutor believed that Shawcross was fully aware of his actions. This was not his first nor his last crime that he would commit. They were aware of his previous crimes and his capabilities. This time, Shawcross was sentenced to 250 years in prison and was unlikely to be released from prison (video)

5. Discuss the key symptoms of a psychopath.

Psychopaths are clever and can express enthusiasm and narrate unrealistic stories. In their stories, they seem above others, and exemplify charismatic traits. Psychopaths are often perceived as narcissistic and are driven by their self-esteem. They don’t abide by any jurisdiction and aren’t bothered by others’ emotions. Often, psychopaths perceive themselves as the true victims. They view others as targets to gain pleasure for their amusement. Psychopaths are known to lie and manipulate and are knowledgeable of their purposes. Often they can be perceived as aggression as a valid response (Hare)

Shawcross resembles the key symptoms of a psychopath. During his interview, Shawcross would elaborate on his encounters in the war. He would go into detail about the heinous acts against an enemy during the Vietnam War. He would go into detail about skinning and chopping their heads from the body and burning there remains. He mentioned that he received recognition for his acts and was seen as a “sick son of a bitch”. Shawcross had spent time in the Vietnam war. However, his positions were nothing more than checking supplies. He was never in the war zone, nor does anyone remember this specific encounter (Video)

6. Explain what Hare means by “verbal vomit” and “strange, flat eyes?”

Hare uses the term “verbal vomit”, which I interpreted as a person who will continually talk, and not consider the words that are coming out. They want to get there point across and are so driven by their needs. Psychopaths cannot distinguish the meaning of words and how they can impact others. They are more concerned with their ego, and the ability to have their needs met. Like Hare mentions in his book, the quote that he provided was focused on the “I” language. Rather than worrying about the other person’s needs, they are focused on their needs.

In regards to Hare using the term “strange flat eye”, he is describing an individual’s depiction of a person’s lack of emotions. My interpretation of this term is the ability to describe a person’s inability to represent emotions through their eyes. Whether that be eye contact, the lack of luster in their pupils. They are strange because regular people display emotions in their eyes.

Arthur Shawcross demonstrated both “verbal vomit” and “strange, flat eyes” During his interviews, he never focused on the emotions, thoughts or concerns for the victims and their families. Shawcross was fixated on his agenda. He was focused on his perception of what had to be done and dignified his actions. There were several instances where he would often continue talking, to put his point across. This made it challenging for the interviewer to continue asking questions. For example, during the interview, Shawcross was asked about his motives for the killings of his first two victims. He would respond in rage, refuse to discuss the matter, and would continue by threating to leave if it were mentioned again. During the duration of his interview, he would often have the same look in his eye. You could see no empathy or depth in his eyes. They looked almost unlike and emotionless. He would answer questions without any morality or depth. He seemed almost like a robot, that blinked almost every time he spoke.

7. What do rules mean to a psychopath?

In regards to rules, they have absolutely no meaning to psychopaths. Psychopaths are fully aware of the rules but follow their own set of rules and don’t consider societal expectations. They are capable of articulating words but are unable to pair that with emotional depth. Psychopaths don’t have moral concerns that guide them (Hare) They will sacrifice anything to satisfy their wants and needs. If a psychopath is disinterested, they will ignore it. They are unable to consider the consequences of their egoistic behavior.

Shawcross fits this because he never considered societal rules. He was a serial killer who raped and mutilated 13 people. His first two victims were children who endured horrendous acts of crime. They were raped, mutilated, and tortured. During his interview, when he was asked about his victims, he wasn’t sympathetic. Shawcross lacked sympathy for the victims’ families. He knew his actions were illegal and wrong. However, he would justify his actions and would be unsympathetic. When asked about his thoughts on the first two murders, he would refuse to discuss details. I believe that he wasn’t ashamed of his crimes. Rather he was unwilling to discuss these crimes because he agitated by the number of questions that were focused on these cases in particular. When it came to his other victims, he was always ready and eager to discuss details. He would describe strangulation, rape, torture, and his motives. During the interview, he had mentioned his motive to kill one of the prostitutes was based on a rumor that she had AIDS. He became enraged to the point where he strangled her and began to mutilate her and ate her vagina. Shawcross only believed in his rules, and that was to dominate his victims, and punish them if they disrespected him. He found pleasure in harming others and would go above anything to ensure that his needs were met.

8. How do both nature and nurture influence the development of psychopathy?

The tendencies of a psychopath are a result of both nature and nurture. Based on research, neither side of the psychopath’s brain can process emotions. From the very beginning, psychopaths are off on the wrong start. The social environment has an impact on the development of a psychopath. Psychopaths are more likely to emerge if they come from a poor environment. Which can be a result of early damage to the brain. Psychopaths have hereditary circumstances that contribute to the functions of the brain. If the frontal cortex of the brain is damaged, it can impair the way we process a sense of control and emotions(article)If a child is abused, neglected, or deprived this could result in damage to the brain. These instances can result in violent crimes committed and affect the basics of building personality. (Hare) That doesn’t necessarily mean that all children who encounter poor environmental development will become psychopaths. These children are more prone to this instance. These influences can also impact responses, life experiences, and social conditions. Social circumstances and parenting can affect psychopath development and is exemplified through behavior.

In the video, Shawcross demonstrated the neurological damages that may have influenced his development of psychopathy. Several neurologists believed that brain damage was likely to cause damage to a person’s perception. The neurologist linked brain damage and extreme violent behaviors (video) Based on their findings, they believed that Shawcross resembled the same patterns in his brain scan that causes damage to his perception. Shawcross encountered a combination of physical, mental, and brain damage (video) Shawcross claimed to have a horrible upbringing. His mother was abusive and often performed sexual acts. Shawcross displayed clear indications that his brain was damaged. Throughout his life, he had committed petty crimes like theft. As time progressed, he began committing more severe crimes such as rape and murder. Shawcross displayed no self-control. He would often torture his victims by raping, strangulation and torture. He was unable to process others’ emotions and was unsympathetic to other people. He strangled several prostitutes for petty issues. He killed one of his mistresses because she stole a few things for him. He attempted to justify his actions. He was impulsive and strangled the majority of his victims.

9. Discuss specific childhood/adolescent behavioral signs that are considered predictive of later psychopathy (not mental health diagnostic categories).

At a young age, many psychopaths express extreme behavioral problems. These may include lying, stealing, disruptiveness, destruction, and bullying. A majority of psychopaths are characterized by developing in a poor social environment. As mentioned earlier most people who have troubled childhoods, don’t develop into psychopaths. Sometimes, children are raised in a stable environment. They are given the proper care that is needed to effectively develop. However, psychopaths are still capable of developing from stable families. A young psychopath who comes from a good family can be distinguished by early sexual experiences and the same traits such as lying, stealing, and destruction (Hare)

Shawcross had mentioned how he came from a broken home. Throughout his childhood, his mother and father had molested him. His mother had been inappropriately touching him for years. Shawcross ran away from home when his father raped him. During his sessions with a neurologist, Shawcross would often be put into hypnosis. In that time, he would go into detail in regards to the sexual acts his parents would perform. In the video, it was mentioned that his mother sexually assaulted him with a broom. It’s challenging to believe Shawcross because his mother and sister denied the allegations. It’s unclear if all the details of his childhood abuse are true. Psychopaths are typically good liars, and there was no clear indication that Shawcross had any medical records during that time frame to back up his story. If his stories were true, this would explain his tendencies to perform gruesome and sexualized acts of murder.

Psychopaths vs. Sociopaths

Every person behaves differently, the way they were affected by their environment or the way they think it’s best. People judge others by their behavior and often call them psychopaths or sociopaths without knowing what those two words truly mean. Psychopathy and sociopathy are both dissocial personality disorders.

“Main characteristics of psychopathy: emotional dysfunction, lack of empathy and guilt, pathological lying; and abandoning relationships.” (1 Tassy, Sebastien) Signs and symptoms of psychopathy are mostly: callousness, manipulation, low control over their conduct, superficial charm, glibness, impulsiveness, and pathological lying. (2 “Psychopathy:” Definition, Symptoms, Signs, and Causes)

Sociopaths, on the other hand, are characterized by a lack of conscience and empathy and exhibit antisocial behavior and attitudes. Signs and symptoms of sociopathy: lack of morals, emotions, lack of empathy, and mostly antisocial behavior that leads to criminal acts, exploit others for personal gain, and disregard for the rights and feelings of others. (3 Khan, Nadia)

Differences between psychopathy and sociopathy

Sociopaths and psychopaths are people, who seem to be totally similar to others, but the truth is different. Psychopathy and sociopathy have typical characteristics, which are different for each.

‘While the traits of each may seem similar, it is thought that sociopaths have a less severe form of lack of empathy and lack of guilt. Sociopaths can form some deep bonds ( such as, possibly, with family) while a psychopath cannot.'(4 Tracy, Natasha)

It means that sociopaths deal with people variously. If they hurt their family members or close friends, they might feel guilty, but if it’s a strange person, they show no guilt. Regarding psychopaths, it doesn’t matter if acts of theirs hurt people, even those close ones. Secondly, sociopaths react impulsively. They´re driven by emotions: fear, anger, thoughts, and by a need to control something interesting for them. (5 Changingminds.) These factors lead to a conclusion that sociopaths have a low level of self-control since their acts drove by emotions mostly aggression, and that psychopaths have a high level of self-control since they’re more intelligent and don’t feel emotions like other people.

Similarities between psychopathy and sociopathy

Psychopathy and sociopathy are mostly different, but they still have a couple of similarities. One of the similarities is that both don’t feel guilty when they hurt someone strange or do the crime. (4Tracy, Natasha), (5 Changingminds.) That shows the lack of guilt they have, mentioned before. Secondly, they are both little regard for rules and social values. (5 Changingminds.) For them, people are not equal, and it can be seen by how do psychopaths and sociopaths treat them. The third similarity is the lack of concern for the well-being of others. (5 Changingminds.) All these similarities are related to each other, and they all tell, how psychopaths and sociopaths do not care about individuals.

Causes

Genetic factors cause psychopathy, but it can be provoked by environmental and interpersonal factors, which are less likely to be the reasons for psychopathy. (15 Castillo, Michelle.)The genetic factor, psychopathy treats appear mostly to the teens with signs of lying and being selfish, but it can also appear in later age as for example when a person is 30.

In history, there were just a few cases when environmental and interpersonal factors caused psychopathy. One of the cases was Ted Bundy, normal man till his girlfriend, he loved so much, left him because he wasn´t “marriage material”.(11 Fink, Jeri) The whole situation broke him, and something changed in his brain, and he started to kill young women, who looked the same as his girlfriend.

Genetic factors do not cause of sociopathy, but biological and environmental factors do. “The biological factor is when the brain starts to react faster to emotionally charged words, such as love, happy or hate, than neutral words, such as television, grass or sky.” (12 Leidenfrost, Corey) It´s a sign of a non-sociopathic person slowly becoming a sociopath. Their minds start to work differently from others´ minds

The environmental factor is trauma from abuse or rejection from the past. “By the studies, scientists found an out those people who became sociopaths because of environmental factor are much more violent than the sociopaths from a stable background.” (6 Peterson, Tanya J.) If the child had a good relationship with both parents, and they would divorce after time, the child can take it the worst way and it can lead to sociopathy.

Types of psychopaths and sociopaths

Psychopathy is divided into three groups: low psychopathy, moderate psychopathy, and high psychopathy. Low psychopathy or primary psychopathy is a term for manipulative and motivated behavior by personal gain. (16Dean, Andy C) “High psychopathy also called as secondary psychopathy is when the behavior of psychopath is a result of high anxiety and negativity coupled with a lack of behavioral and emotional control.” (16Dean, Andy C)

We divide sociopaths into 7 groups: the common one, alienated, disaffiliated, hostile, disempathetic type, cheated & and aggressive and dissocial sociopath. (7 McGee, Faith)(17Positivagirl) The common sociopath is the one that which doesn’t care about how his actions will affect others, generally, he only cares about his life and tries to avoid any responsibility for his actions.

The alienated type of sociopath is one that has a problem to empathize with other people, and it more likely that they show more feelings toward a pet or a thing than a human being. This type of sociopathy is caused mostly because of the environment during youth. (7McGee, Faith)(17Positivagirl)

The hostile type is a constantly angry, violent, and aggressive person that feels like being completely abandoned by society. (7McGee, Faith)(17Positivagirl) Because of that feeling, they act so aggressively. It’s the way they think they can survive in this world.

The disempathetic type is the emotional type. These sociopaths have a small group of people. They care about that group the most, and they have strong bonds with them. Others, who are outside the group treat as an object, and can´t feel empathy towards them. (7McGee, Faith)(17Positivagirl)

The cheated sociopaths are ones that feel as they were cheated. They think that the rules they have to follow are trying to take away their good lives. The aggressive ones use violence to get what they want, they want to have control over their victims. (7McGee, Faith)(17Positivagirl)

“The dyssocial sociopath is psychologically normal, only think thing that makes him sociopath is that he likes to be part of a violent group of people and committing crimes. The dyssocial sociopath takes care of his friends, but does not care about people outside the group.” (7McGee, Faith)(17Positivagirl)

Problems they face in society

Everyone is afraid of something, that does not meet human standards. They’re most scared of sociopaths and psychopaths because they don´t know what to expect from them and sometimes it’s hard to find out who is the sociopath or psychopath because they´re intelligent enough to hide.

Is it hard to find a job as a sociopath or a psychopath? The truth is that psychopaths are those at the top, like CEO or leader as we know some from the history, where we had some psychopaths. (20Dodgson, Lindsay.) The same goes for sociopaths, but they’re not at the top. It’s easy for them to find a job, but their problem is that they can’t do one job for too long. They can´t stay and do one thing for a long time.

Are they dangerous?

They´re seen as dangerous beings in the eyes of others. Sociopaths are seen like that because of their violent behavior and lack of empathy. But psychopaths are more dangerous and scarier than sociopaths. It´s harder to notice a psychopath than a sociopath, that’s because they can manipulate people, they´re very educated and think before they act, it’s easy for them to get anything they want, to get to power and control without notice.

In the past, we had many cases when psychopaths or sociopaths became dangerous for us, for this world, especially rulers and kings, while nowadays psychopaths are represented by serial killers, CEOs, lawyers, chefs, and police officers.

Percentage of psychopaths and sociopaths

Normally, when we step out of our houses, we don’t meet sociopaths and psychopaths that often.

Because psychopathy is a more genetic disorder, there aren’t many psychopaths present in this world. The percentage of psychopaths is around 1% of the total population. (18 “How to Spot Psychopaths: Speech Patterns Give Them Away.”) It was the same for sociopaths before, but because sociopathy is caused by environmental and interpersonal factors the percentage of sociopaths is still growing. The actual percentage is 4% of the total population. (19Psychologia) The total percentage of psychopaths may grow as the total percentage of sociopaths, but it all depends on how people going to deal with this problem.

Famous psychopaths and sociopaths

We had many psychopaths and sociopaths who were trying to take over countries, control people, kill people for their own happiness, and a lot more. History´s most famous psychopaths were, for example, King Leopold II, who was a king of Belgium. He controlled the Congo Free

State in central Africa and because he wanted the rubber and ivory from the Congo region, millions of people died. As a punishment for not doing as he said, he would amputate workers hands, and if the worker needed his hands, they would amputate his wife’s and children’s hands. (8-allthatsinteresting.com/famous-psychopaths/1.)

Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge who committed mass of executions using hammers, axes or sharpened bamboo sticks. Around 2 million people died during his time. (9-allthatsinteresting.com/famous-psychopaths/2.)

Elizabeth Bathory, a woman that killed hundreds of girls forcing to eat their own flesh, torture them for weeks and at the end, burn them or let them starve themselves to death. (10-allthatsinteresting.com/famous-psychopaths/3.) Or other psychopaths like Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Tomás de Torquemada, Josef Mengele, Vlad The Impaler or Jim Jones.

We had some famous sociopaths in history as John Gacy who murdered about 32 young men and buried them under his house. ( 14 Most Famous Sociopaths To Ever Walk The Earth) Jeffrey MacDonald, narcissistic sociopath, that murdered his pregnant wife and his two daughters he had. (14) These sociopaths were serial killers, but we had also sociopaths, who were not serial killer or murderers. Jack Henry Abbott was sociopath, who ended in prison. To get out he stabbed someone and got back to prison for robbery. Joey Buttafuoco, another sociopath, that never committed murder.

People should not say, that someone is a sociopath or a psychopath based on one of the characteristics mentioned before. It´s more about a person´s behavior in a certain, longer time. If a person has more than one of these dissocial personality disorders´ characteristics, he or she´s more likely be one.

Psychopathology is one of the most glorified types of personality disorders in the modern world. There is a curiosity in the idea of social differences between individuals. Psychopathology was one of the first types of personality disorders to be discovered. (Millan et al, 1998) This finding of psychopathology allowed for an explanation of individuals with emotional tendencies that were different from societal norms. This new founding explanation has allowed the idea of psychopathology to be analyzed in depth by the world. We can see this in our world today through popular media outlets such as the news or in film. There has been labels put onto individuals with psychopathic characteristics that make society, in turn, become romanticized to the idea of psychopaths. (Keesler, 2017) The fiction that is created from the disorder makes people believe that most psychopaths are murderous and criminals. Names such as Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer are highly recognizable as they are profound psychopathic serial killers. The idea of psychopathology should state that all psychopaths should be criminals as they have improper emotional regulation and lack of understanding for others. However, there are psychopaths that live in society that do not commit crimes and live without issues. There is a need to understand the differences in individuals who commit murder and violent crimes compared to the individuals who are normal citizens. Why is it that some individuals are driven to murder and others not? The difference between these individuals that are psychopaths, stems from genetic and environmental differences that occur in individuals during adolescence and childhood that can either allow for positive protective factors to take hold or negative risk factors that turn some of these individuals into serial killers and violent offenders. There are differences in brain structure from individual to individual that show differences in executive functions. Along with biological differences, there are emotional differences that stem from childhood experiences that can shape an individual in different ways that can lead to a life of crime, or a life free of crime.

Psychopathology is a socially devastating disorder defined by a constellation of affective, interpersonal, and behavioral characteristics, including egocentricity; impulsivity; irresponsibility; shallow emotions; lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse; pathological lying; manipulativeness; and the persistent violation of social norms and expectations. (Cleckley, 1976) This definition of psychopathology is what leads us to believe that psychopaths are normally violent. They don’t follow societal norms and have improper emotional regulation. These characteristics are a poor baseline to start out with in regards to living a proper non-criminal life. As many of these characteristics promote an unhealthy and possibly violent lifestyle, there is however the ability for these individuals to not become violent and live successful lives. There can be many different types of career paths with those diagnosed in the psychopathology domain.

There is a high prevalence of psychopathic individuals in society. In the United States, psychopaths are estimated to make up one percent of the population. (Raine, 2001) This is a lot of individuals that are walking around with a different idea of what emotion is in comparison to the other ninety-nine percent of the population. Of this one percent, not all are criminals. The psychopathic literature can now differentiate between the two different types of psychopathy in calling them either “Successful” or “Unsuccessful” individuals. (Sifferd, 2013) The successful are individuals that are able to live a life without crime and or negative actions. They are stable enough to live in society as a normal person but with different emotional regulations and tendencies. The unsuccessful individuals are those who commit crimes and are a detriment to society due to their lack of understanding of the same emotional processes.

The psychopathic brain has many differences in its structure compared to that of normal individuals. It is important to understand the difference in the brain of a psychopath versus a normal individual. A study was done by Motzkin et al, using functional magnetic resonance imaging that allowed them to see the difference in brain structure between normal and psychopathic test subjects. They found that the main difference in the brain was that of the path between the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and amygdala, as well as the vmPFC and the medial parietal cortex. (Motzkins et al, 2011) These areas of the brain are responsible for the processing of negative stimuli. (Brogaard, 2012) These pathways have reduced connectivity and create the lack of empathy that psychopaths have. They are unable to process negative emotion the same way a normal person does and they are unable to create a response from the negative action. This is why psychopaths lack emotion as their brain structure does not allow for proper emotional regulation in both these pathways. However, psychopaths may miss the negative emotions and fail to react but they can still feel pain. Psychopaths may not feel embarrassed, sad or nervous. (Brogaard, 2012) This lack of emotion leads psychopaths to a lack of understanding in what crimes they are committing. This however cannot be completely explained as there is no conclusion to whether or not this is due to a genetic difference in brain structure or the ability of the environment to influence the neurons in this pathway. This adds to the literature on nature vs nurture in the aspect of psychopathology.

The comparison between successful and non-successful psychopaths stems from the idea of executive function and the ability of an individual to combat the disorder in different ways then violence. (Gao, 2010) In a study done by Yu Gao et al, they looked at the difference between psychopathic offenders and non-offenders. They compared five different sources: community samples, individuals from employment agencies, college students, industrial psychopaths, and serial killers. (Gao, 2010) These individuals that are being tested are individuals that are considered to have the proper criteria of a psychopath but however do not commit crimes. They break up the comparison into three sections: brain/central nervous system, psychophysiological/autonomic nervous system, and cognition. The biggest difference in brain structure is that of reduced prefrontal and amygdala volumes as well as hippocampal abnormalities. (Gao, 2010) This difference in the fear pathway of the brain creates a brain that has a highly reduced ability of executive function in decision making and the picking up of social cues. This lack of decision-making can lead to frustration in psychopathic individuals that could possibly lead them to promote violence to solve problems in their lives. Along with this lack of function, there is a deficit in the ability for some psychopaths to get an anticipatory heart rate response and this characterizes the unsuccessful psychopaths clearly. (Gao, 2010) The lack of decision-making and physiological response this could be the direct relation to why antisocial behaviors turn into psychopathic tendencies that then could project future instances of crime. In the brain of a successful psychopath, something different was found. They found that functions of the amygdala and hippocampus were not altered and they showed high executive function and decision making. In addition, they show to have intact fear conditioning while being hypersensitive to somatic markers. (Gao, 2010) This ability to be a psychopath but still have high levels of functioning creates a different kind of individual. They use their high ability of functioning to get ahead of others. This could be considered pure manipulation by instance of intelligence. This leads them down the path of nonviolence and to be considered a successful psychopath.

There is a few comparisons between the two groups that allow us to see why they are still both to be considered psychopaths, violent or not. There was seen to be a true lack of empathy towards others in both groups. (Gao, 2010) This lack of empathy is the hearty of psychopathy as that’s the core aspect. This lack of empathy, with the addition of the aspect of executive function, creates the two pathways of psychopaths. Successful psychopaths are to be seen as more intelligent and know the power they can have without resorting to violence. While unsuccessful psychopaths are unable to put the lack of empathy into context to properly execute what they want in a certain situations which can lead to violent behavior that can lead to murder.

Genetically, psychopathic diagnoses are shown to be sixty percent heritable. (Brogaard, 2012) This was found out in the Minnesota twin’s study, where they compared twins to see genetic variance. This number however is not highly recommended to be as true as mutations and environmental interactions can alter the brain’s structure and function. The differences in brain structure can be seen as genetic reasoning for psychopathology but there is an incidence environmental interaction that is important to look at when comparing successful and non-successful psychopaths.

As modern science progresses, there is a constant battle between nature and nurture. Which factors attribute to a certain disorder, either that of genetics or that of environmental stimuli. They both only tell half the story as they are both heavily involved in the creation of each individual. The main environmental experience that affects individuals in psychopathy is that of abuse. There are three main types of abuse: physical, emotional, and sexual. There can be an argument for the connection between abuse and violent offenses. The brain at a young age is moldable in a way that these experiences of abuse change an individual’s mindset that can create the decisions they make later in life. In a Swedish longitudinal study done by Lang et al, they used an adult psychopathy checklist to compare abuse and neglect to future violent offending. They found that subjects with high victimization in childhood exerted significantly more violence compared to the subjects of low victimization who had non or minor instances of violence later in life. (Lang, 2002) This promotes the general idea that early victimization can be correlated with violence in psychopathic individuals. The risk factor of abuse can be said to be correlated with that of violence. Individuals that have a stable home are set up with more protective factors that can lead an individual to direct his social inadequacies in a way that does not turn violent.

It has been increasingly thought that child psychopathology is etiologically heterogeneous and cannot be attributed to a singular cause. (Mash, 2014) This creates the complications that arise from the competition of genetics and the environment. Both of these play an important role in the accumulation of psychopathology in certain individuals. Parenting strategies and the addition of anti-social characteristics combine with brain abnormalities to be able to form an individual in a way that attributes to violent nature. If parenting strategies are in theory positive, this can set up the child to combat the psychopathic characteristics to be able to live a successful life.

Genetics and environmental influences are however not subject to their own domain. They interact together to be able to create the individual. For example, those with a specific variant of the enzyme monoamine oxidase-A gene are more prone to displaying violent behavior if they has an abusive upbringing. (Davies, 2018) This interaction between a genetic and environment conceptualizes the need to study both areas. This would suggest that a child who is deemed to be a psychopath may in fact not resort to violence in instances of abuse if the specific variant is not present. This can then explain the relationship between genetics and environment because of the ability for our body to be born with this specific variant versus not. (MAO) activity in platelets has been associated with novelty-seeking and risk-taking behavior. (Millon et al, 1998) This could be a genetic explanation for some psychopathic individuals that engage heavily with their environment in risky behaviors that can lead to antisocial tendencies and violent offending.

In a normal individual the ability to regulate our emotions and compare them with others is regulatory. Normal individuals understand the consequences of their actions and the affect it has on others. In subjects of psychopathology, this emotional regulation of one’s self is impaired. They are unable to understand emotion properly enough to be able to make proper decisions. There brain structure is different than normal subjects as the vmPFC to amygdala pathway plays an important role in fear monitoring behavior. The difference in brain structure allows psychopathic individuals to think and feel differently. However, not all psychopaths are violent offenders and there is differences in the same brain structures that lead them down two paths of either being successful or unsuccessful. Along with the brain structure differences between psychopathic individuals, there are environmental influences that can shape an individual during childhood such as abuse. The risk factor of abuse can lead to individuals of psychopathy to resort to violence in more instances then their counterparts who were not abused. This constant interaction between environment and genetics can be used to create the answer for why some psychopaths are violent offenders. In the instance of violent offending in psychopaths, it can be said that there is a difference between successful and non-successful individuals. There is a direct change in cortical pathways in the brain that promote executive function and decision-making in successful individuals that allow them to not resort to violence because of their higher intellect. The variance of MAO can show the balance between genetics and environment. The reason that some psychopathic individuals commit violent acts of crimes can be moderately associated to multiple aspects of brain anatomy, genes, abuse, and other environmental stimuli that all act together to promote antisocial behaviors that lead to a difference in executive decision-making and in turn can create a violent psychopath.

References

1. Morana, H. C., Stone, M. H., & Abdalla-Filho, E. (2006). Personality disorders, psychopathy and serial killers. Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil: 1999), 28, S74-9.
2. Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity; an attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality.
3. Raine, A., Sanmartín, J., & Sanmartín, J. (Eds.). (2001). Violence and psychopathy. Springer Science & Business Media.
4. Sifferd, K. L., & Hirstein, W. (2013). On the criminal culpability of successful and unsuccessful psychopaths. Neuroethics, 6(1), 129-140.
5. Keesler, M. E., & DeMatteo, D. (2017). How media exposure relates to laypersons’ understanding of psychopathy. Journal of forensic sciences, 62(6), 1522-1533.
6. Motzkin, J. C., Newman, J. P., Kiehl, K. A., & Koenigs, M. (2011). Reduced prefrontal connectivity in psychopathy. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(48), 17348-17357.
7. Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (Eds.). (2014). Child psychopathology. Guilford Publications.
8. Gao, Y., & Raine, A. (2010). Successful and unsuccessful psychopaths: A neurobiological model. Behavioral sciences & the law, 28(2), 194-210.
9. Brogaard, B. (2012). The making of a serial killer. Psychology Today.
10. Lang, S., Af Klinteberg, B., & Alm, P. O. (2002). Adult psychopathy and violent behavior in males with early neglect and abuse. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 106, 93-100.
11. Davies, N. From Abused Child to Investigating Nature.
12. Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopaths and their nature: Implications for the mental health and criminal justice systems. Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior, 188-212.

People rely on their emotions to tell them about the world. Emotions are about something, they feel like something, they influence how we interact with others, and they can be evaluated for appropriateness. What roles do emotions play in a theory of moral motivation? According to sentimentalists, emotions play a fundamental role in moral judgement. In this paper, I will argue how the emotional deficits of psychopaths provide support for sentimentalism.

The best way to distinguish emotions from other psychological states, such as beliefs and desires, is in terms of their functions (text 10). An emotion is a response to external or internal events of major significance, and they are about things we care about or things that matter to us (text 71). Pride targets positive things about ourselves, shame has to do with negative things about ourselves, and fear is a response to perceived danger. (TEXT 71). One function of emotions is that they feel like something, (TEXT 71) Anger is felt as a pounding heartbeat, fast breathing, tense muscles, and feeling hot and sweaty. In fact, evidence shows that basic emotions feel much the same and have the same physiological signs for people across different cultures. (TEXT 71) Another function of emotions is that they can motivate us to action (TEXT 71). Anger gives us some information about the world, which is often particularly morally significant (TEXT p. 75) because anger seems to be about or directed at moral transgressions (TEXT p. 74). This can also be said about other emotions such as guilt, empathy or sympathy, moral approval, admiration, pride, shame, resentment, gratitude, etc. (Text 75). Judgments that have moral content, i.e. moral judgements, have a special relationship to action that other kinds of judgements do not have (text 75).

Moral norms generally concern the welfare and rights of individuals, and conventional norms relate to the regulation and coordination of actions. The difference between such norms comes out most clearly in judgments concerning violations. Moral transgressions are judged to be more serious, less permissible, and less subject to authority than social norms. The moral-conventional distinction tracks the status of moral and social or conventional norms. (MORAL UNREASON p?)

Emotions seem to be related to moral judgements in an important way (TEXT 75) as we tend to be motivated by our moral judgements. However, this tendency can be discouraged by the circumstances or overridden by other motivations. (text 76). Still, we tend to be motivated by moral judgments, whereas judgements made by our reasoning faculty are not essentially motivating, which leads some people to conclude that judgements must be made from our emotions, rather than from our reason (text 76). This conclusion is endorsed by moral judgement internalists, who state that emotions are the basis for moral judgement. One theory of moral judgement internalism, which believes that morality is somehow grounded in moral sentiments or emotions, is referred to as sentimentalism (TEXT 79).

Sentimentalism makes moral judgements motivating because our emotions motivate us (TEXT 79). Further, when our moral judgements change, our motivations tend to change with them. (TEXT 75). If moral judgements are expressions of sentiments or emotions, then it follows that in making a moral judgement we have some motive or other. The claim that moral judgements are essentially motivating is known as moral judgement internalism. It is worth noting that the motivation elicited by a moral judgment does not have to be an overriding motivation for action (Internalism, Emotions, and the Psychopathy Challenge pg. 329). Our moral motivations can be outweighed by non-moral considerations, such as self-centred interests, and some versions of internalism allow this. But if someone has no motivation at all to act upon what they claim to be morally right, this gives us a good reason to suspect that they may not hold a genuine moral judgment (Internalism, Emotions, and the Psychopathy Challenge pg. 329).

Other people deny sentimentalism, and more broadly deny moral judgement internalism, who are known as moral judgement externalists (TEXT 79). Some base their denial on the sentimentalist claim that moral judgements are essentially motivating (TEXT 79). However, as previously noted, a moral judgment does not have to be an overriding motivation for action, on some accounts of sentimentalism. Others claim that the fact that emotions influence moral judgements does not establish that moral judgements are emotional responses, nor that emotions are even an essential part of moral judgement ( TEXT p. 78). Moral rationalism is the idea that morality is based on reason or rationality (How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is It Irrational To Be Immoral p. 285) rather than emotions or sentiments. Moral judgement externalists have claimed that sentimentalists would have a stronger argument if there were empirical evidence that we cannot make moral judgments without emotions (TEXT 78).

Some have thought that psychopaths provide empirical evidence that we can’t make moral judgements without emotions, because psychopaths do not experience emotions like sympathy or compassion and they act immorally (TEXT 78). According to the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, the criteria for antisocial personality disorder includes callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy, disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations, incapacity to experience guilt, and proneness to blame others or to offer rationalizations for their behaviour (Psychopathy and the DSM-IV Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, pg ??). [Psychopaths] are ideal candidates for testing the empirical plausibility of moral theories. Many think the source of their immorality is their emotional deficits. ( Moral Unreason: The Case of Psychopathy.237) Emotionally, they are significantly impaired, incapable of feeling guilt or remorse, their fear and pain responses are abnormal, and their other emotions are shallow compared to the normal population. They are manipulative, egocentric, and impulsive ( Moral Unreason: The Case of Psychopathy p ?) Central to this emotional landscape is a complete lack of empathy. (Moral unreason p. ?) Importantly, psychopaths appear remarkably rational, especially when compared to other populations with behavioural and emotional problems, This provides substantial support for sentimentalism as an empirical theory, (Moral unreason p. ?) When studying the capacity for moral judgement, psychologists explore the psychopath’s basic capacity to distinguish moral violations (e.g., hitting another person) from conventional violations (e.g., playing with your food) (How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is It Irrational To Be Immoral p. 293). Children as young as 4 years of age (Smetana and Braeges, 1990), including children with Downs Syndrome, draw a distinction between moral and conventional norms.12 Since the former have a rather undeveloped reason and the latter low IQ, this rather speaks against the idea that moral understanding is the result of rational processes. (MORAL UNREASON p?)

When compared to non-psychopathic individuals, even children can distinguish the cases of moral violations from the conventional violations on a number of dimensions (How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is It Irrational To Be Immoral p.293-294). Psychologists have tested psychopaths and non-psychopathic control criminals on their capacity to distinguish moral and conventional violations (How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is It Irrational To Be Immoral p. 294) and found that control criminals, like normal adults and children, made a significant moral/conventional distinction on permissibility, seriousness, and authority contingence Psychopaths, on the other hand, didn’t make a significant distinction on any of these dimensions (How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is It Irrational To Be Immoral p. 294-295). In support of the claim that psychopaths lack empathy, it was found that psychopaths were much less likely than the control criminals to justify rules with reference to the victim’s welfare, and instead typically gave conventional-type justifications for all transgressions (How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is It Irrational To Be Immoral p. 295).

Perspective-taking abilities, general rational abilities, intellectual arrogance, and affect-based accounts of the psychopath’s deficit in moral judgement (How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is It Irrational To Be Immoral p. 295)

An argument against the claim that psychopaths’ limited emotional capacity shows favour for sentimentalism over rationalism, is that psychopaths also have a limited capacity to make rational judgements (MORAL UNREASON p?). Since it is clear that psychopaths have emotional deficits of the sort relevant to the sentimentalist view of morality, the question is whether their deficits in their practical reason account for their lack of morality, which would show support for rationalism. For a rationalist, a rational agent’s will is guided by moral considerations insofar as it is guided by rational considerations, (MORAL UNREASON p?) as no one can be morally worthy if we are deficient in practical reason because we won’t be performing the right actions for the right reasons. (MORAL UNREASON p?).

Psychopaths have deficits in their practical reasoning that significantly impairs their decision-making abilities, which has been shown through experimental and anecdotal evidence. For example, psychopaths will frequently act in their own worst interest, exhibit cognitive-perceptual shortcomings in the recognition of certain emotions in others, have attention deficits, are intransigent to certain forms of conditioning, and a grossly inflated view of their abilities, intelligence, entitlements and worth (MORAL UNREASON p?) In fact, grandiosity and egocentricity are part of the diagnostic criteria for the disorder (CITE THAT ONE SOURCE). The most curious thing is that this default idea of their excellence and intelligence is impervious to counter-evidence that most others would consider fairly conclusive, e.g. persistent failure to get any significant education or pursue a career, constant brushes with the law, and so on.

Nevertheless, the sort of perseverance found in psychopaths with regard to their own self-image is out of the ordinary and does seem to reflect a failure of rational belief formation and maintenance.11 (MORAL UNREASON p?). Rationalists conclude that psychopaths’ limited capacity to make rational judgements directly impacts their moral competence and thus sentimentalism does not sufficiently explain moral judgements.

A rebuttal to this sentimentalist claim is that psychopaths do in fact have the capacity to make rational judgements. If psychopaths have normal reasoning skills and they are simply insensitive to moral considerations, it is evidence that you can be rational without being moral. (MORAL UNREASON p.?) Although the reasoning skills of psychopathic individuals appear exclusively egocentric, they do appear intact. There are reasons to think that a narrow attention span is responsible for many of the difficulties in decision-making experienced by psychopaths (MORAL UNREASON p?). Their decision-making is vulnerable to breakdown, but if the goal is exciting, the means few and obvious, and there are relatively few distractions, a psychopath’s reasoning abilities to be relatively good. (MORAL UNREASON p?) . In fact, psychopaths are well-known for their successful manipulation of people, including parole boards and psychiatrists, which does require making complicated decisions about how to act, what to say, and when to say it. Psychopaths do exhibit understanding of right and wrong (MORAL UNREASON p?), however, they fail to regard moral norms as a separate from conventional norms, which are generally regarded as being more serious, less permissible, and wrongness less dependent upon authority (MORAL UNREASON). Further, they appear unmotivated by their understanding that they are not supposed to perform certain actions. (MORAL UNREASON p?) Reference to the welfare of others is very rare or entirely absent when justifying their actions. The moral universe of the psychopath seems characterized by rules set by some authority where harm to others or concern for them is not at all salient. This leads to the conclusion that the ability to make a rational judgement is not what is required to make moral judgements. One may also argue that the psychopath is only motivated by rational judgement, with emotions or sentiments having no influence. For example, if a psychopath wants something they will simply take it, with no regard for how that action may hurt someone else. Consequently, the emotional deficit is seen by many to form the root of the moral one (MORAL UNREASON p?).

There has also been studies done with patients who have suffered damage to their prefrontal cortex. The most prominent effects of these types of damages are flat affect, an inability to act appropriately socially, and difficulties making good decisions (MORAL UNREASON). Since they perform within the norm at standard IQ tests, it has been suggested that their bad decision-making skills are due to their emotional impairments. These types of patients have been compared to psychopaths, as people who sustain injury to areas of the prefrontal cortex early in life present behaviorally and emotionally almost identical to psychopaths. Both suffer from emotional impairments and impaired practical reasons. These impairments are not as pronounced in people who sustain their injuries later in life. It could be hypothesized that the prior learning of emotions and sentiments is what allows them to continue to make rational moral decisions, although there is no evidence to support this theory as of yet. Regardless, we then seem to be back to where we started, with the case of psychopathy supporting sentimentalism over rationalism (MORAL UNREASON p?).

Introduction

Psychopathy is defined as, “egocentricity, impulsivity, callousness, and lack of remorse for behavior that is frequently antisocial and hurtful to others.” (Intrator et al., 1996, p. 1) and thus is classified as a personality/mental disorder. Like many other mental illnesses, psychopathy may be linked to a different structure or makeup of one’s brain, which is one of the main points I will be looking at. Psychopaths themselves have a hard time with empathy and emotion and that lack of remorse can sometimes result in criminal actions This subject can connect to the larger theme of biological psychology in that I am going to be looking into the structural brain differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. This research will also lead me to how psychopaths act and why which can connect to a later subject in the class, emotion and motivation since psychopaths have difficulty expressing emotion, and their motivations, unlike non-psychopaths, is solely themselves regardless of who they hurt in the process.

Why I Chose this Topic

I chose this topic because the concept of mental illness and how it affects people and why it is the way it is has always interested me. I have always been interested in crime and watch a lot of documentaries about criminal psychopaths. Also, I just watched the Ted Bundy tapes and the idea that someone can do so much evil but almost get away with it is remarkable and I wanted to learn more about what exactly a psychopath was. Our own psychology textbook describes psychopaths as “charming, personable, and engaging” (Lilienfeld et al. 2017) which is so shocking because before I saw the tapes and read that bit of the book I always thought psychopaths were like the stereotypical crazy killers depicted in movies. So long story short I was interested in finding out more about exactly what makes a psychopath and how they act.

Discussion of Research

First, a discussion of the structural differences of the brain within psychopaths is necessary. There have been many studies done to determine exactly why psychopaths are the way they are and the vast majority have concluded that an impaired or shrunken amygdala can account for some of the dysfunctionality within a psychopath. R. J. R. Blair, Ph. D., the director of neurobehavioral research in Nebraska, wrote two articles regarding the structure of a psychopaths brain, in the 2003 study he stated, “two recent neuroimaging studies have confirmed that amygdala dysfunction is associated with psychopathy” the amygdala is responsible for controlling emotions and thus an imbalance would cause the tendencies talked about in the definition of psychopathy; lack of remorse, impulsivity, etc. Blair also brought up in his 2007 article that, “individuals with psychopathic traits show reduced amygdala responses to emotional expressions” (Blair, 2007) which makes sense seeing how psychopaths tend to not have a lot of empathy. Another part of the brain, although close to amygdala, that may account for the impulsivity of psychopaths, is the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (orbitofrontal and medial frontal cortex) (VPC), “which is assumed to be involved in cognitive processes such as decision-making.” (Weber et al., 2008) which would account for impulsivity in psychopaths. Weber et al. also mention how the amygdala and VPC are “highly interconnected” in their 2008 article, suggesting that, “psychopathy is associated with both amygdala and prefrontal dysfunctions” (Weber et al. 2008). In the end, psychopaths are defined as lacking remorse and being impulsive and the reason for those character marks would be an impaired or less reactive amygdala and VPC.

Now that the structural differences have been established, it is important to know what else differentiates a psychopath from the average person. Experiments have been conducted to determine common trends in psychopathic behavior. For example, in an experiment performed in Oregon, Wisconsin, prisoners (half of which were psychopaths and half of which were not) were asked to play a card game in order to compare the response perseveration of psychopaths to non-psychopaths. Subjects sat in front of a screen with a hundred-card deck on it with the words “DO YOU WANT TO PLAY?” on it and two buttons in front of them, either play a card or quit the game. If a player chose play a card and a face card was presented, then they would earn five cents but if an integer card popped up, they would lose five cents. Every turn the same page asking the player if they want to play appears. As the game goes on the probability of losing increases by ten percent every block of ten cards. The observers measured how many cards the subjects decided to play before quitting. They also tested players in three different conditions; a condition I being that the subjects received immediate feedback and could respond instantly, condition IC being identical to I except they received cumulative feedback as well, and condition ICW which was identical to IC except for the screen for the next play did not appear until five seconds after the previous play. In the end, the results were:

The mean numbers of cards played by psychopaths and controls were 89.6 (SD=16.9) and 62.8 (SD=27.9), respectively, in Condition I; 80.8 (SD=24.6) and 61.8 (SD=24.5) in Condition IC; and 48.4 (SD=31.9) and 48.3 (SD=21.6) in Condition ICW. (Newman et al., 1987)

These statistics show that is spur of the moment decisions, psychopaths display more response perseverance than the controls in the study. Perseverance in psychology is defined as,“the tendency to continue a response set for reward despite punishment or changes in environmental contingencies that reduce the adaptiveness of continued responding.” (Newman et al., 1987), suggesting that psychopaths have difficulty recognizing the increasing probability in punishment even instantly prompted but when given time to think about decisions and view the feedback and they are much more rational. In instant decision situations though, the results of this experiment suggest that impulse control is something psychopaths struggle with, even if a decision they make affects them negatively. As Lilienfeld et al. (2017) stated, “they [psychopaths] know full well that their irresponsible actions are… wrong; they just don’t care.” which is validated by this experiment in that although they are rational thinkers when cumulative feedback is given and they are forced to adapt (the five-second wait), when it comes to decisions they have to instantly make, their ability to determine the correct course of action is not strong. Along with their lack of remorse and egocentric tendencies, this experiments prove that impulsivity and response perseverance is also common in psychopaths.

What I’ve Learned

Throughout my research, I found out that most psychopaths are not violent or serial killers but that it is very likely that I have probably even met one before. I also learned that psychopaths are the way that they are due to their brain structure being different than the average person. In terms of the real world, I can use my new knowledge to be more cautious when talking to people and being more aware if I am talking to a potentially dangerous psychopath (although again most psychopaths are not violent but just in case). Through my research as well I can understand people and their actions more around me even if I do not agree with them. This understanding and knowledge can help me in my future career hopefully as a teacher and being able to connect with students.

References

1. Blair, R. J. R., (2007). Trends in Cognitive Sciences. The Amygdala and Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex in Morality and Psychopathy, 11(9), 387-392.
2. Blair, R. J. R., (2003). The British Journal of Psychiatry. Neurobiological Basis of Psychopathy, 182(1), 5-7.
3. Freer, J., (2019). Intro to Behavioral Psychology. Biological Psychology, Slide 27.
4. Intrator, J., Hare, R., Strizke, P., Brichtswein, K., Dorfman, D., Harpur, T.,Bernstein, D., Handelsman, L., Schaefer, C., Keilp, J., Rosen, J., & Machac, J.(1997). Biological Psychiatry. A Brain Imaging (Single Photon Emission Computerized Tomography) Study of Semantic Affective Processing in Psychopaths, 42(2), 96-103.
5. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Namy, L. L., Woolf, N. J., Cramer, K. M., & Schmaltz, R., (2017). Psychology: from inquiry to understanding. Psychopathic Personality: Don’t Judge A Book by its Cover. 3(1), 594-595.
6. Newman, J. P., Patterson, C. M., & Kosson, D. S., (1987) Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Response Perseveration in Psychopaths, 96(2), 145-148.
7. Weber, S., Habel, U., Amunts, K., & Schneider, F., (2008). Behavioral Sciences and the Law. Structural Brain Abnormalities in Psychopaths- A Review, 26(1), 7-28.