Table 7.5 PPI-R total and factors and MSCEIT subscales
P P I-R T otal PPI-I Fearless Dominance PPI-II Self C entred Impulsivity C oldhearte dness M SCEIT T otal -.12* .23* -:26* -.14* B ranch 1 Perceiving Em otion -.04' . 2 0 -.16* -.0 1 1 B ranch 2 F acilitating T hought -.16 .15 -.26 -.09 B ranch 3 U nderstan ding Em otion -.07 .28 - . 2 2 -.16 B ranch 4 M anaging Em otion -.18 .16 -.33* -.04
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***Significant after Bonferroni correctionp < .01. The correlations o f interest Eire indicated in bold. 1 One tailed tests
The correlations between El as measured by the MSCEIT and psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R are shown in table 7.5 (see Appendix 3, Table 7.10 for all results relating to PPI-R and all MSCEIT scales). No relationship was found between PPI-R total score and the underlying subscales and MSCEIT total score. The only significant relationship found was between PPI-II o f the PPI-R and Branch 4 o f the MSCEIT (r = -.33).
Table 7.6 PPI-R total and factors and MSCEIT total and subscales after partialling out IQ score P P I-R T otal PPI-I Fearless Dom inance PPI-II Self C entred Impulsivity C oldh’d M SCEIT Total .05' .311
-.11
.06' B ranch 1 Perceiving Em otion .04* . 2 0 -.06 © 00 B ranch 2 Facilitating T hought -.07 .15 -.16 - . 1 0 B ranch 3 U nderstanding Em otion . 1 2 .34* - . 0 2 .03 B ranch 4 M anaging Em otion - . 0 2 .18 -.17 .13*p < .05 **p < 0 1 ***Significant after Bonferroni correctionp < .01. The correlations o f main interest are presented in bold. 1 One tailed tests
Table 7.6 summarises partial correlation co-efficient for the PPI-R and MSCEIT when controlling for IQ. The pattern of results is not greatly changed by partialling out the effects o f IQ. A significant correlation was found between PPI-I o f the PPI-R and Branch 3 o f the MSCEIT (r = .34) (see Appendix 3, Table 7.11 for all results relating to PPI-R and all MSCEIT scales with partial correlations controlling for IQ).
8. DISCUSSION
Many studies have suggested that an emotional deficit may underpin some o f the features o f psychopathy (for a review see Blair et al., 2005). Blair et al. (2005) believe that this is a specific difficulty related to recognising sadness and or fear. However, Kosson et al. (2 0 0 2) have a different view which is that psychopathic individuals do
not appear to experience difficulty recognising and labelling fear but they may not experience appropriate physiological responses to such stimuli. In fact, Kosson et al. (2 0 0 2) suggest that psychopathic individuals may demonstrate a superior ability to ‘decode anger’.
The concept o f emotional intelligence involves the capacity to perceive emotions, understand those emotions and manage them. Therefore it appeared that the tools developed to measure emotional intelligence would be ideal to examine the emotional deficit hypothesised to underpin psychopathy and that deficits in emotional
intelligence would be manifest in those with high scores on measures o f psychopathy (Ortony et al., 2007). There are currently no such studies that have explored the relationship between the MSCEIT and psychopathy in a forensic sample. Therefore I measured psychopathy using both the PCL-R and a self-report measure PPI-R and an ability El measure, the MSCEIT.
Despite the prediction o f a negative correlation between PCL-R total score and Factor 1 and MSCEIT total score, no statistically significant relationships were found. Due to the fact that I found a relationship between IQ and performance on the MSCEIT (r = .48), I repeated this analysis using a partial correlation to control for the effects o f IQ. After controlling for the effects o f IQ, contrary to earlier predictions, I found a significant positive relationship between MSCEIT total score and Factor 2 o f the PCL-R (r = .49).
Turning to Branch 1 (Perceiving Emotions) o f the MSCEIT, I focused on this scale because it would allow further testing o f Blair et al.’s (2005) theory o f psychopathy.
Based on Blair et al.’s (2005) theory, I predicted that a significant negative
relationship would be found between PCL-R total score and Factor 1 o f the PCL-R and Branch 1 o f the MSCEIT. No relationship was found between PCL-R total score or Factor 1 and Branch 1 o f the MSCEIT. After carrying out partial correlations to control for the effects o f IQ, the relationship between Factor 2 and MSCEIT total scores became significant and I found a stronger relationship between Factor 2 o f the PCL-R and Branch 1. Both Facet 3 (r = .34) and Facet 4 (r =.35) demonstrated a significant positive relationship with Branch 1 o f the MSCEIT.
These results suggest that there is a positive relationship between Factor 2 o f the PCL- R and MSCEIT total score and Branch 1 o f the MSCEIT, which relates to perceiving emotions. This means that participants with a high score on Factor 2, which captures the antisocial lifestyle and impulsive component o f psychopathy, demonstrate better performance on the MSCEIT and are better at perceiving emotions.
Turning to the PPI-R, I predicted that significant negative relationships would be found between PPI-R total score and the Coldheartedness scale and MSCEIT total score. I also predicted that a significant positive relationship would be found between PPI-I and MSCEIT total score. I found no evidence to support these predictions. Based on Blair et al.’s (2005) theory, I also predicted that a significant, negative relationship would be found between PPI-R total score and Branch 1 o f the MSCEIT. Once again, I found no evidence to support this prediction either before or after controlling for the effects o f IQ.
Prior to controlling for IQ, my results were similar to Vidal et al. (2010) who found a significant relationship between PPI-II and MSCEIT total score (r = -.30). Although I found a correlation o f similar magnitude (r = -.26), this failed to reach statistical significance. Vidal et al. (2010) also found that PPI-II was negatively related to Branches 2, 3 and 4. Prior to controlling for IQ, I also found a significant negative relationship between PPI-II and Branch 4 (r = -.33) but the relationship with Branches 2 and 3 failed to reach statistical significance.
In terms o f what these results tell us about the construct o f psychopathy, I note that the PPI-R and the PCL-R demonstrated a different relationship with the MSCEIT. A strong positive relationship was found between Factor 2 o f the PCL-R and MSCEIT total score, whereas in contrast, a non-significant but negative relationship was found with PPI-II. These results suggest that the subscales o f the PCL-R and PPI-R might be tapping different underlying constructs o f psychopathy.
The results from the PCL-R suggest that there is a positive relationship between Factor 2 and MSCEIT total score and the ability to perceive emotions (Branch 1). These results are more consistent with Kosson et al.’s (2002) theory that psychopathic individuals may not be deficient in the perception o f emotions and may even be more successful at decoding specific emotions such as anger. However, what is more unexpected was that I found a relationship between the MSCEIT and Factor 2.
There is another study which has also found that Factor 2, or more specifically Facets 3 and 4, are related to performance on a facial recognition task. Hansen, Johnsen, Hart, Waage & Thayer (2008) found strong, significant positive relationships between Facet 3 (r = .45) and Facet 4 (r = .53) and the accurate identification of disgust in
facial expressions. Participants with a high score on Facets 3 and 4 were better at identifying disgust in facial expressions.
There is often debate between researchers and clinicians about the relationship between Factors 1 and 2 o f the PCL-R and other variables. One recent example is the relationship between the factors o f the PCL-R and violence. I am aware that this is not related to understanding emotional processing in psychopathic offenders but it
highlights how thinking about the relationship between the factors o f the PCL-R and other variables can change over time. Hare & Neumann (2010) state that they believe that the affective component o f psychopathy is related to the risk o f future violence (Kennealy, Hicks & Patrick, 2007; Parks & Bard, 2006; Vitacco, Neumann & Jackson, 2005). However, a more recent meta-analysis by Min Yang, Wong & Coid (2010) concluded that Factor 2 has a stronger relationship with future violence than Factor 1. Hare & N eum ann’s (2010) conclusions were based on the results of a number o f studies with good sample sizes. However, Min Yang et al. (2010) reached a different conclusion based on the results o f a larger number o f studies and more data.
9. CONCLUSION
Emotional deficits are believed to be central to the concept o f psychopathy. However, these results provide no evidence that individuals with psychopathic traits
demonstrate poorer performance on aspects o f emotional intelligence, as might have been predicted. Instead I found that some aspects o f psychopathy are related to improved El in this sample o f offenders.
CHAPTER 8 PSYCHOPATHY AND A TRAIT El MEASURE (TRAIT META