High Psychopathic Trait Individuals’ Decisions to Empathize are Influenced by Power Dynamics 

High Psychopathic Trait Individuals’ Decisions to Empathize are Influenced by Power Dynamics | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article High Psychopathic Trait Individuals’ Decisions to Empathize are Influenced by Power Dynamics Kirsten Stewart, Matthew Shane This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4002136/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The lack of empathy associated with heightened psychopathic traits is commonly attributed to fundamental emotional and/or cognitive deficits. However, recent studies showing that psychopathic individuals are capable of normative empathy in certain contexts suggest their reduced empathy may instead reflect reduced motivation to empathize. To further evaluate these possibilities,158 university students completed self-report measures of psychopathic traits and motivations to empathize and performed an Empathic Choice Task which presented various social situations and asked them to freely choose to either empathize virtuously (for the target’s benefit), empathize non-virtuously (for their own benefit), or merely observe. Results indicated that psychopathic traits were unrelated to the overall frequency of empathic choices. However, post-hoc analyses indicated that the motivations underlying these choices varied as a function of situational power dynamics, and this was increasingly so for individuals higher in psychopathic traits. Specifically, psychopathic traits were positively correlated with virtuous empathy when targets were depicted in positions of power over the participant, but positively related to non-virtuous empathy when they were depicted in positions of power over the target. These results support motivational theories of psychopathy and highlight the strategic sensitivity of high psychopathic trait individuals to complex socio-contextual dynamics. Biological sciences/Psychology Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour psychopathy empathy motivation choice power Figures Figure 1 Introduction Psychopathy is a personality disorder traditionally conceptualized with two factors, consisting of interpersonal/emotional (e.g. manipulativeness, callousness, lack of remorse) and behavioural/criminogenic (e.g. impulsivity, irresponsibility, criminal versatility) features, respectively [ 1 ]. The interpersonal/emotional features are often deemed particularly core to the disorder, and recent research has identified the most central feature as a ‘calloused/lack of empathy’ (in particular, affective empathy [ 2 , 3 ]). Thus, gaining an improved conceptualization of the psychopathic individual’s empathic deficits may be particularly important for understanding the underlying nature of the disorder. Traditionally, this lack of affective empathy has been believed to stem from a core deficit in either emotional and/or cognitive processes that preclude the ability to effectively process emotional information [e.g. 4, 5, 6]. For instance, the Low Fear hypothesis argues that the psychopathic individual lacks the ability to experience normal levels of fear [ 4 ], the Violence Inhibition Model argues that the psychopathic individual experiences an insufficient sensitivity to others’ social distress cues [ 5 ] (see also related brain-based models: the Differential Amygdala Activation hypothesis [ 7 ]), and the Response-Modulation Hypothesis argues that the psychopathic individual is unable to automatically shift attention away from dominant, goal-oriented attentional sets [ 8 ] (see also the Attentional Bottleneck Theory [ 9 ]). While these theories differ in terms of the hypothesized source of the psychopathic individual’s empathic challenges, common among them is the belief that they are rooted in a core deficit . Another possibility is that the psychopathic individual experiences a reduced motivation to empathize. Indeed, empathy has itself been recently conceptualized as a motivation [see 10, 11]. Moreover, several recent studies from our lab and others support the notion that the psychopathic individual can experience empathy (at least under certain circumstances), and that observed reductions may be related to their motivational stance. Some of this work has made use of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. For instance, Arbuckle and Shane [ 12 ] reported that offenders with high psychopathic features showed lower empathy-related brain activity when passively viewing images of other people in pain, but that these reductions normalized when they were asked to specifically try to empathize with the target [see also 13, 14]. Other work has used self-report measures to investigate dispositional levels of empathic motivation. For instance, Kajonius and Björkman [ 15 ] reported that Dark Triad traits (of which psychopathy is one such trait) were negatively related to dispositional empathy (as measured via the Interpersonal Reactivity Index; [ 16 ]), but positively (albeit weakly) related to empathic ability (as measured via the Multifaceted Empathy Test; [ 17 ]). Shane and colleagues [ 18 ] went one step further and utilized the Motivation to Empathize (MtE) scale to investigate the specific motivations that may drive empathic processing in individuals with heightened psychopathic traits. The MtE explicitly asks individuals to indicate how much they would care to know what a variety of different people (e.g. their mother, their boss, a stranger) were thinking or feeling for a variety of either ‘virtuous’ (e.g. because they care about the other person, because they don’t like to see them in pain) and ‘non-virtuous’ (e.g. because they want to get something from the person, because they may want to manipulate the person) reasons. Results indicated that individuals with heightened psychopathic traits showed a higher overall motivation to empathize; however, those motivations were more often driven by non-virtuous, rather than virtuous, motives. Thus, while individuals with heightened psychopathic traits consistently exhibit attenuated empathy in standard laboratory experiments, the extent to which this attenuation is due to a true inability to do so remains an open question [see also 19]. One potential criticism of the existing work is that participants’ empathic tendencies are not generally evaluated within a true free-choice environment. In Kajonius and Björkman [ 15 ] and Shane et al. [ 18 ] participants simply provided self-reported indicators of how they thought they would act; and in Arbuckle and Shane [ 12 ] and Meffert et al. [ 13 ] participants were explicitly directed to try to empathize with the targets. Thus, the extent to which participants would actually choose to empathize in an unconstrained setting remains unclear. This may well be important, given well-known divergence between self-reported and behavioural outcomes (e.g. [ 20 – 23 ]). With this in mind, participants in the present study were asked to complete an Empathic Choice Task (ECT; a modified version of Cameron et al.’s Empathic Selection Task [ 24 ]) within which the extent to which level of psychopathic traits would relate to the frequency that participants freely chose to empathize could be measured. In Cameron et al.’s [ 24 ] original version, participants were presented with images of various individuals and were asked to freely choose to either a) empathize with the target, or b) merely observe the target in a detached fashion. In this way, participants’ natural propensity to empathize [see 25] could be more closely assessed. For the present study, we modified the ECT task so that it could separately evaluate one’s motivation to empathize virtuously and non-virtuously. To this end, participants were presented with three choices on each trial instead of two: a) ‘share feelings for the person’s benefit’, b) ‘share feelings for your own benefit’, or c) ‘merely observe’. Based on the findings from Shane and colleagues [ 18 ], it was hypothesized that: 1) psychopathic traits would show no relationship to the overall frequency of total empathic choices (thus, participants with higher psychopathic traits would choose to empathize just as often as those with lower psychopathic traits), but 2) psychopathic traits would differentially relate to the frequency with which empathy was chosen for virtuous and non-virtuous reasons (i.e. psychopathic traits would correlate negatively with the frequency of virtuous choices to empathize and positively with the frequency of non-virtuous choices to empathize). Results Missing Data Participant’s data on a given measure was included in final analyses if they completed at least 75% of that assessment. This led to the exclusion of three participants’ PPI-R-40 data, and 12 to 17 participants’ MtE data (depending on the specific subscale). In addition, three participants were excluded because their data was deemed an outlier for falling more than three standard deviations beyond the mean. For all included participants, any missing data was handled via mean substitution. Personality Measures Table 1 displays means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations between all PPI-R-40 and MtE measures (see also Appendix B for supplementary details). PPI-R-40 scores were normally distributed (skewness: − .20; kurtosis − .18; Shapiro = Wilk: p > .10) with a mean score typical of an undergraduate population ( M = 2.20, SD = .28). Males ( n = 51, M = 2.32, SD = .20) tended to score higher in psychopathy than females ( n = 103, M = 2.15, SD = .30, t (135) = 4.08, p < .001), as is also fairly customary. Total self-reported motivations to empathize (on the Motivation to Empathize scale) were also normally distributed (skewness = .21, kurtosis = − .91; Shapiro-Wilk: p < .001) and indicated that participants showed moderate predispositions to empathize with the targets in some fashion ( M = 6.49, SD = .72). That said, participants tended to report higher levels of virtuous ( M = 3.55, SD = .74) than non-virtuous ( M = 2.94, SD = 1.33) motivations, t (132) = 4.08, p < .001, overall. Females reported higher levels of virtuous motives ( M = 3.64, SD = .73) than did males ( M = 3.38, SD = .73); t (139) = -2.01, p < .05. Consistent with previous work, correlational analyses identified a positive relationship between PPI-R-40 total scores and total self-reported motivations to empathize, r = .24, p = .005, and subsequent analyses suggested that this was due to an increased motivation to empathize non-virtuously, r = .29, p < .001, but not virtuously, r = − .09, p = .29. To more formally assess this, we conducted a repeated-measures ANCOVA, with MtE Motivation Type ( virtuous and non-virtuous ) as a within-subject variable and PPI-R-40 total score entered as a covariate. This analysis revealed a main effect of Motivation Type, F (1,130) = 19.04, p < .001, which confirmed that participants held greater virtuous than non-virtuous motivations to empathize, a main effect of PPI-R-40, F (1,130) = 11.24, p < .001, which confirmed that PPI-R-40 scores were positively related to a greater motivation to empathize overall, and a significant PPI-R-40 x Motivation Type interaction, F (1,130) = 14.91, p < .001, which confirmed that PPI-R-40 scores were positively correlated with non-virtuous, but not virtuous, motivations to empathize. Table 1 Descriptive and Correlational Data Regarding Psychopathic Traits, Motivations to Empathize and Empathic Choices Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Psychopathic Traits (via the PPI-R-40 ) Total Score 2.20 .28 --- Self-reported Motivations (via the MtE ) Virtuous 3.55 .74 − .090 --- Non-Virtuous 2.94 1.33 .291 *** − .153 --- Total 6.49 .72 .235 ** .390 *** .798 *** --- Empathic Choices (via the ECT ) Virtuous 35.38 8.68 − .017 .457 *** − .245 ** .003 .230 ** --- Non-Virtuous 30.21 9.98 .001 − .232 ** .337 *** .149 − .036 − .352 *** --- Total Empathic 66.45 9.98 − .051 .153 .006 .113 .199 * .516 *** .545 *** --- Merely Observe 23.70 10.18 − .011 − .144 − .040 − .137 − .173* − .520 *** − .560 *** --- --- Note. PPI-R-40 and MtE scores represent mean values; ECT scores represent frequency counts. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p = < .001. Empathic Choice Task The task succeeded in extracting a sufficient number of each choice type to support full analyses. Participants chose to empathize virtuously ( M = 35.38 trials (39.3%); SD = 8.68) significantly more often than they chose to empathize virtuously ( M = 30.21 trials (33.5%); SD = 9.98), which they again chose significantly more often than they chose to merely observe ( M = 23.70 trials (26.2%); SD = 10.18; F (2,298) = 39.05, p < .001, all planned comparisons p s < .001). As may be expected, given the reciprocal nature of virtuous and non-virtuous choices in the ECT task (where one choice necessarily negated the other), the frequency with which virtuous and non-virtuous choices were made was negatively correlated, r = − .35, p .25). Correlational analyses indicated that PPI-R-40 scores were unrelated to the frequency of empathic choices made on the ECT (all p > .25). To assess these relationships more formally, a repeated-measures ANCOVA was conducted with ECT Motivation Type ( virtuous, non-virtuous, merely observe ) entered as a within-subject variable and PPI-R-40 entered as a covariate. This analysis confirmed no main effects of Motivation Type, F (2,290) = .84, p = .43, or of PPI-R-40, F (1,148) = .06, p = .81, and no PPI-R-40 x Motivation Type interaction, F (2,290) = .02, p = .98. Thus, all participants chose to empathize with similar frequency, regardless of PPI-R-40 scores. Despite the overall non-significant differences in empathic choices, it was appreciated that the ECT scenarios differed in potentially important ways. For instance, some scenarios depicted situations in which the participant would hold power over the target (e.g. you just beat someone in a high-stakes game ), while other scenarios depicted situations in which the target would have held some power over the participant (e.g. you are being evaluated by your driving test instructor ). Given work indicating that that decisions to empathize can be sensitive to contextual power dynamics, we post-hoc categorized the 90 ECT scenarios into three categories based on the perceived power relationship portrayed within that scenario. Specifically, scenarios that depicted situations in which the target was portrayed as holding power over the participant (e.g. the target was a boss, a parent, a policeman, in a position of strength) were categorized as Participant-over-Target scenarios, scenarios that depicted situations in which the target was portrayed as holding power over the target (e.g. the target was a child, an employee, a victim, in a position of weakness) were categorized as Target-over-Participant scenarios, and scenarios in which no obvious power relationship existed (e.g. the target was a sibling, a stranger, in no position of strength or weakness) were categorized as Neutral scenarios; see Appendix F for classification designations). Following this classification process, we undertook two similar repeated-measures ANCOVAs (one for virtuous choices and one for non-virtuous choices) within which Power Type ( Participant-over-Target, Target-over-Participant , Neutral ) was entered as a within-subject factor and PPI-R-40 total score was entered as a covariate. Both ANCOVAs revealed main effects of Power Type (virtuous empathy: F (1,219) = 24.34, p < .001; non-virtuous empathy: F (2,238) = 22.03, p < .001. Subsequent one-sample t-tests indicated that virtuous empathy was more often chosen when the participant had power over the target ( t = 14.05, p < .001, and non-virtuous empathy was more often chosen when the target held power over the participant, t = 18.46, p < .001 (see Table A11). Neither ANCOVA revealed a main effect of PPI-R-40 (virtuous choices: F (1,152) = .10, p = .75; non-virtuous choices: F (1,152) = .02, p = .89). However, both models revealed significant PPI-R-40 x Power Type interactions that indicated that level of psychopathic traits influenced the tendency towards virtuous versus nonvirtuous choices as a function of the power dynamic (virtuous choices: F (1,219) = 7.31, p = .003; non-virtuous choices: F (2,234) = 5.27, p = .01. Specifically, higher PPI-R-40 scores predicted significantly fewer virtuous choices ( r = − .16, p = .05), and non-significantly more non-virtuous choices (r = .13, p = .11) in Participant-over-Target scenarios, and significantly greater virtuous choices ( r = .15, p = .07) and non-significantly fewer non-virtuous choices ( r = − .11, p = .18) in response to Target-over-Participant scenarios (see Fig. 1 ). To further consolidate this effect, we calculated virtuous > non-virtuous difference scores for each of the three Power Type conditions. Consistent with the above depiction, PPI-R-40 total scores and virtuous > non-virtuous different scores were positively correlated in the Target-over-Participant scenarios, r = .15, p = .07, negatively correlated in the Participant-over-Target scenarios, r = − .17, p = .04, and unrelated in the Neutral scenarios, r = − .04, p = .65. A final RM-ANCOVA was administered to evaluate for differences in the frequency of merely observe choices as a function of power dynamics. This model revealed no significant main effects or interactions (all p s > .10). PPI-R-40 Subcategories As individual subcategories of psychopathy may show differential relationships, all ECT-relevant analyses were also evaluated with regard to the eight PPI-R-40 subscales. First, correlational analyses indicated that Fearlessness correlated positively with virtuous choices, r = .18, p = .02, Machiavellian Egocentricity correlated negatively with virtuous choices, r = − .18, p = .03, and Social Influence correlated positively with non-virtuous choices, r = .20, p = .02. For these three subscales, repeated measures ANCOVAs, with Power Type ( Target-over-Participant, Participant-over-Target, Neutral ) entered as a within-subject variable and the PPI-R-40 subscale score entered as a covariate of interest were run to evaluate for potential PPI-R-40 subscale x power dynamics interactions. As these analyses were merely exploratory, control for multiple comparisons were not undertaken. These analyses revealed only one effect of interest: a significant interaction between Machiavellian Egocentricity x Power Type, such that higher Machiavellian Egocentricity was related to decreased frequency of virtuous choices, r = − .21, p = .008, and increased frequency of non-virtuous choices, r = .19, p = .02, in Participant-over-Target scenarios. Discussion The present study investigated the extent to which psychopathic traits would influence one’s tendency to empathize with people in a wide variety of different social situations. To this end, on each trial participants were presented with a description of people in various scenarios and given the free choice to either: a) empathize for the target’s benefit, b) empathize for their own benefit, or c) merely observe. Two a priori hypotheses were formed about the relationship between empathic choices and psychopathic traits: 1) level of psychopathic traits would be unrelated to total empathic choices, but 2) level of psychopathic traits would influence the type of motivation that underlay the choice to empathize when it was chosen. Specifically, we hypothesized that PPI-R-40 scores would correlate positively with the frequency that empathy was chosen for non-virtuous motives, and (potentially) negatively with the frequency that empathy was chosen for virtuous motives. Hypothesis one was supported. Overall, participants chose to empathize on 74% of all trials, and this was largely stable across the spectrum of PPI-R-40 scores. Thus, psychopathic traits were largely unrelated to the overall frequency of choices to empathize. This counters a considerable literature that has reported negative relationships between psychopathic features and levels of empathy [e.g. 26, 27, 28, but see 29]. However, it should be noted that most of this existing work has evaluated empathic abilities , not propensities [see 25]; and further, that the work that has evaluated propensities has rarely done so within a free-choice environment. Our study thus stands somewhat separate from most existing work, and in so doing suggests that – regardless of their actual ability to do so – those with heightened psychopathic traits may choose to empathize just as often as anyone else (see also [ 30 ] regarding psychopathy and empathy not being mutually exclusive and [ 31 ] regarding labelling high psychopathy / high empathy as Dark Empaths). Our second hypothesis was not entirely supported, however. While some hypothesized effects were seen at the PPI-R-40 subscale level (e.g. Machiavellian egocentricity correlated positively with non-virtuous motives; Social influence correlated negatively with virtuous motives), the hypothesized relationship with total PPI-R-40 scores was not found. Thus, all participants, regardless of total psychopathic traits chose to empathize for virtuous and non-virtuous reasons with approximately equal frequency. In some respects, this too supports the notion that those with heightened psychopathic traits don’t differ in their predispositions towards empathy. However, the non-relationship between psychopathic traits and frequency of non-virtuous empathy did run somewhat counter to participants’ own self-reported motivations to empathize on the Motivation to Empathize scale (within which those with heightened psychopathic traits did show expected higher levels of non-virtuous motivations). Thus, there appears to be some discrepancy between participants’ self-reported motivations to empathize and their actual choices made on the Empathic Choice Task. Such self-reported/behavioural discrepancies are not unusual – indeed, it has long been recognized that self-reported intentions do not necessarily predict real-world behaviour [e.g. 32], in part because social desirability and impression management can lead people to self-report what they believe they should do, rather than what they would actually do [20; see also 21, 22, 23 regarding self-report of empathy specifically]. However, it is interesting that this discrepancy between MtE and ECT scores increased as a function of psychopathic traits. One possibility is that the self-reports from individuals with heightened psychopathic traits are less trustworthy (due either to intended deception or lack of insight). Alternately, it could be that individuals with psychopathic traits were more likely to try to manage their responses on the ECT in line with social desirability demands. While this may seem counter to the concept of the psychopathic individual as a violator of social norms, recent research suggests that psychopathic individuals may be particularly likely to employ impression management strategies to try to manipulate the perceptions of others (but only in public; in private, the opposite appears true [ 33 ] (see also [ 34 ] which has reported that the self-concepts of individuals with dark triad traits tend to be more state- than trait-dependent). If the participants with psychopathic traits were particularly aware of the social/contextual demands of the study, then we may anticipate that differences in their empathic choices would reveal themselves in a context-dependent manner. To this end, exploratory analyses revealed that the empathic choices of individuals with heightened psychopathic traits were particularly sensitive to the power dynamic in the depicted scenarios (see also [ 35 ]). Specifically, participants with heightened psychopathic traits more frequently chose to empathize for non-virtuous reasons when the scenario placed them in a position of power over the target, yet more frequently chose to empathize for virtuous reasons when the scenario placed the target in a position of power over them. This suggests that when the participant with heightened psychopathic traits felt they were in a position of power they were more likely to act selfishly, for their own gain; in contrast, when they felt they were in a less powerful position they were more likely to act graciously, for the benefit of the other. This pattern was particularly so for individuals higher in the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale of the PPI-R-40. It has long been recognized that a strategic sensitivity to the intricacies of state-dependent power dynamics can be useful – for instance, for building up one’s reputation or for gaining status and resources [ 36 ]. For instance, individuals with lower power may be more motivated to gain the goodwill of those in higher power, while individuals with higher power may be more motivated to gain information and exert influence [ 37 ]. We may then speculate that the tendency for those with heightened psychopathic traits to empathize virtuously when targets held power over them could represent an attempt to gain power (see [ 38 ]) or a profitable connection [ 39 ] by behaving cooperative or conciliatory. In contrast, their tendency to empathize non-virtuously when they held power over the targets could represent an attempt to exploit or dominate [see 40, 41, 42]. Of potential import, both of these cases may be viewed as examples of the individual with heightened psychopathic traits employing empathy in a contextually specific way, as a function of their own unique (but not illogical or irrational) situational goals and motivations [see 43] This characterization of the psychopath as a logical and rational being has a consistent presence in both academic and popular writings. And yet this characterization has rarely infused itself into underlying etiological theories of the disorder. Rather, most theories continue to exist as deficit-based theories , wherein the psychopathic individual is deemed victim to cognitive or emotional dysfunction that prevents them from making wise, or socially appropriate, decisions [e.g. 4, 5, 6]. Certainly, the present findings would require replication; however, they also contribute to a growing body of work that has been increasingly questioning these deficit-based theories [e.g. 12, 18, 28, 45]. Instead, they support conceptualization of the psychopath as a rational agent whose emotional tendencies may be different, but not necessary dysfunctional (see [ 46 , 47 , 48 ]). The study is not without its limitations, of course. First, while the sample size (N = 158) was largely appropriate to test hypothesized effects it may have been somewhat underpowered for identifying some of the interactive effects that were investigated. For instance, the power-related effects – which essentially represent a 3-way interaction – only reached trend status. We anticipate that a larger sample will have a greater opportunity to reveal the full nature of this effect, and welcome future work oriented towards this goal. Second, recruitment relied exclusively on undergraduate psychology students from a post-secondary institution in Canada, and measurement of psychopathic traits was handled via a well-validated self-report instrument. A rich literature supports the validity of these recruitment and assessment procedures; nonetheless, the extent to which the present results will generalize to general populations or to forensic populations with PCL-R-assessed psychopathy, will require additional testing. Third, the ECT is a relatively new measure of behavioural empathy that has yet to receive comprehensive validity/reliability testing. That said, we found considerable overlap between participants’ responses on the ECT and the MtE, which has previously received independent validation [ 16 ]. We welcome future work that aims to further assess the response validity of the ECT (our lab is currently invested in several related projects), however, this ECT/MtE relationship does provide valuable preliminary evidence for the validity of the task. Finally, while the ECT may be viewed as a significant improvement on self-reported assessments of empathy, by assessing decisions to at , the task itself still technically relied on self-report. That is, participants still self-reported how they would act in each presented scenario. Thus, ECT metrics may remain somewhat influenced by participants’ willingness and/or ability to accurately report how they would act in those scenarios. Future studies could examine whether these results would be found among other populations, especially clinical psychopathy populations. Studies could further attempt to elucidate what contextual factors might promote engaging in virtuous or non-virtuous empathy among psychopathic populations. Would individuals with high psychopathy show a distinctive increase in non-virtuous empathy once specific goals are induced (such as those that align with values of power, excitement, or promotion)? Would a larger inclusion of others in their ‘in-group’ be associated with higher virtuous empathy (motivations or choices)? Would measuring participants’ perceptions of long-term benefit/gain when choosing to empathize reveal some choices denoted as ‘virtuous’ as being, instead, underlyingly non-virtuous (and would such underhandedly non-virtuous choices correlate with psychopathy)? Additionally, further research could seek to control for the influence or measure the contribution of factors such as emotional intelligence, social-desirability, and depth of engagement and mentalization in the social scenarios for individuals with psychopathy. Finally, as empathy is a mental behaviour (rather than observable), future studies could aim to further clarify the relationship between virtuous/non-virtuous empathic choices and pro-social/anti-social behaviour (as well as the impact of psychopathy and motivations). Methods Participants One hundred and ninety-one undergraduate students were recruited on a first-come first-served basis from the Ontario Tech University SONA research platform in return for course credit. Of these, 15 were found to be duplicate enrollments due to a system error – for these 15 cases, only the participants’ first responses were retained. In addition, 18 participants were removed prior to analysis for the following reasons: 2 did not indicate a fluency in English, and 16 did not complete a large portion (> 25%) of the primary measure. Thus, the final dataset consisted of 158 participants (52 males, 32.9%), ranging in age from 17 to 51 years ( M = 20.67, SD = 5.44). Participants’ ethnicity reflected the diversity of the Ontario Tech student population: 46.2% Asian (N = 73), 12.7% African American (N = 20), 21.5% Caucasian (N = 34), and 19.6% Other (N = 31). A majority of participants (N = 100, 63.3%) specified English as their first language. See Table A1 for all demographic data. Assessments Demographics Questionnaire Demographic information was collected via an in-house derived questionnaire and included age, sex, race, and socio-economic status. Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Revised (PPI-R-40; [ 49 ]) The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised 40-item short form (PPI-R-40; see Appendix C) is an abbreviated version of the 154-item Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R [ 50 ]). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-style scale ranging from 1 (false) to 4 (true), which allows for the calculation of a total score as well as eight subscale scores. The scale shows high validity and reliability, as well as high convergence with the PPI-R (all rs > .75) in both university and forensic samples [51]. Motivation to Empathize Scale (MtE; Shane, 2020) The Motivation to Empathize Scale (MtE; [ 52 ] see Appendix D) is a self-report instrument designed to measure the strength of one’s propensity to experience empathy for a variety of different reasons. Participants are provided with a list of 20 people (i.e. ‘targets’; e.g. mother, father, teammate, opponent) and, for each person, are asked to rate on 7-point Likert-scale the extent to which they would care to know what that person is “thinking or feeling” for each of six motivations. Three of these motivations are ‘virtuous’: …because I have tender concerned feelings for them, …because I want to protect them, …because it affects me greatly to see them in pain; the other three are ‘non-virtuous’: …because I may be able to manipulate them to get my way; …because it’s wise to get information that you can use against people later on; …because of what I can get for them. The MtE has shown preliminary reliability and validity, including a consistent two-factor structure and convergent (for virtuous) and divergent (for non-virtuous) validity with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index’s (IRI) [ 16 ] empathic concern and perspective taking subscales [ 52 ]. Empathic Choice Task The Empathic Choice Task (ECT; see Appendix E) was developed as a modified version of the Empathy Selection Task by Cameron et al. [ 24 ]. In the original task, on each trial participants were presented with the image of a person and were asked to choose to either empathize (i.e. to describe the feelings and experiences of the person) or not empathize (i.e. to describe objective facts about the person). Thus, the task measured the frequency with which participants freely chose to empathize with unknown others. The present study modified the task in two ways. First, instead of using pictures of people, we presented participants with descriptions of different people in specific situations that may elicit empathy (e.g. a homeless man has not eaten for four days). Second, we asked participants to choose between three options instead of two, in order to separately evaluate the choice to empathize virtuously or non-virtuously, or to not empathize. Thus, participants were asked to choose between one of three options: ‘share feelings for the person’s benefit’, ‘share feelings for your own benefit’, or ‘merely observe’. The frequency with which participants chose each of these three options constituted the primary dependent measures in the task. Specifically, the frequency that they chose to ‘share feelings for the person’s benefit’ represented their motivation to empathize virtuously, the frequency that they chose to ‘share feelings for their own benefit’ represented their motivation to empathize non-virtuously, and the sum of their virtuous and non-virtuous motivations represented their total motivation to empathize (the frequency that they chose to ‘merely observe’ indicated their motivation to not empathize; i.e. the reciprocal of total motivations to empathize). For complete details regarding task creation and validation steps, see Appendix F. Procedure All components of the study, including the ECT, were conducted online from home via Ontario Tech’s Qualtrics portal. Informed consent was first obtained digitally. Once obtained, participants completed the study task in the following order: the demographics form, the ECT, the PPI-R-40, and the MtE. The ECT was conducted prior to the self-report measures to ensure that cross-measure contamination could not influence the ECT results. Following completion of all study components participants were debriefed and awarded one course credit for their participation in the study. The study was approved by the Ontario Tech University Research Ethics Board (REB #16633) and was performed in accordance with all REB requirements and regulations. Analyses SPSS28 was used for all analyses. Preliminary analyses involved Pearson correlations to replicate reported relationships between psychopathic characteristics (via the PPI-R-40) and motivations to empathize (via the MtE), and to characterize relationships between those measures and the ECT. A preliminary repeated-measures ANOVA was then conducted, with Empathy Type as a within-subject variable, to evaluate for overall difference in the frequency of each choice. Subsequently, a series of similar repeated measures ANCOVAs were conducted, with Empathy Type as the within-subject variable and PPI-R-40 total score as a covariate of interest, to evaluate the relationship between empathic choices and psychopathic traits. Because Mauchley’s test showed that the sphericity assumption was not met on several RM-ANOVA analyses, Greenhouse-Geiser or Huyn-Feldt corrected results were reported (if ε 0.75, respectively). Relationships between PPI-R-40 subcategories and empathy choices were similarly investigated, though only for exploratory purposes (as power was insufficient to control properly for multiple comparisons across subscales). Finally, we undertook a post-hoc classification of all 90 ECT scenarios into three categories depending whether the scenario portrayed the participant in a position of power over the target ( Participant-over-Target , e.g. “Your child comes to you asking to go to a party”), the scenario portrayed the target in a position of power over the participant (Target-over-Participant , e.g. “you are summoned to your boss’s office for a chat”), or the scenario didn’t portray either participant or target in a position of power ( Neutral , e.g. “You hear one of your friends gossiping about another”). For full details regarding scenario categorizations see Appendix F. A series of repeated measures ANCOVAs (one for virtuous motives, one for non-virtuous motives) were then conducted with Power Type as a within-subject variable to evaluate for potential differences in empathic choices as a function of psychopathic traits and/or power dynamics. Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding This funding was made possible by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant awarded to Dr. Matthew Shane and a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant awarded to Dr. Matthew Shane. We thank both agencies for their generous funding without which this work would not be possible. Author Contribution K.S. and M.S. contributed to all aspects of the project, including the conception and writing of this work, the analysis of study data, and the preparation of this draft for submission. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Acknowledgements We would like to offer thanks and appreciation to Myra Leblanc for her help preparing the figures for the manuscript. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study have been made available to Editorial Board Members and referees at the time of submission and has been made openly available on the Open Science Foundation (OSF) website via the following link: https://osf.io/fz2y4/files/osfstorage/65e7cc3b8992ec03d678868b References Hare, R. D. Psychopathy: A clinical construct who's time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54 https://doi-org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/10.1177/0093854896023001004 (1996). Verschuere, B., Grothe, A. S., Waldorp, L., Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S., Edens, J., Skeem, J., & Noordhof, A. What features of psychopathy might be central? A network analysis of the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R) in three large samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127, 51–65 https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/95ewr (2017). Verschuere, B. & Te Kaat, L. What are the core features of psychopathy? A prototypicality analysis using the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R). Journal of Personality Disorders, 34, 410–419 https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_396 (2020). Lykken, D. T. Emotionality and autonomic reactivity: An appraisal. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 2, 49–55 (1967). Blair, R. A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1–29. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-p (1995). Newman, J. P. & Lorenz, A. R. Response modulation and emotion processing: Implications for psychopathy and other dysregulatory psychopathology. Handbook of Affective Sciences, 904–929 https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195126013.003.0049 (2003). Moul, C., Killcross, S. & Dadds, M. R. (2012). A model of differential amygdala activation in psychopathy. Psychological Review , 119, 789–806 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029342 (2012). Patterson, C. M. & Newman, J. P. Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological Review, 100, 716–736 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.4.716 (1993). Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Curtin, J. J., & Newman, J. P. Specifying the attentional selection that moderates the fearlessness of psychopathic offenders. Psychological Science, 22 , 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610396227 (2011). Zaki, J. Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1608–1647 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037679 (2014). Cameron, C. D. Motivating empathy: Three methodological recommendations for mapping empathy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12 https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12418 (2018). Arbuckle, N. L. & Shane, M. S. Up-regulation of neural indicators of empathic concern in an offender population. Social Neuroscience, 12, 386–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2016.1179669 (2017). Meffert, H., Gazzola, V., Den Boer, J. A., Bartels, A. A., & Keysers, C. Reduced spontaneous but relatively normal deliberate vicarious representations in psychopathy. Brain, 136, 2550–2562 https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt190 (2013). Shane, M. S. & Groat, L. L. Capacity for upregulation of emotional processing in psychopathy: All you have to do is ask. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13, 1163–1176 https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy088 (2018). Kajonius, P. J. & Björkman, T. Individuals with dark traits have the ability but not the disposition to empathize. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109716 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109716 (2020). Davis, M. H. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 (1983). Lang, P.J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings . Gainsville (1997). Shane, M., Carrington, F., & Groat, L. L. “Sure I can, when I want to”: Psychopathic traits are associated with increased motivation to empathize, but not for virtuous reasons. Manuscript in preparation. (2022). Griem, J., Kolla, N. J., & Tully, J. Key challenges in neurocognitive assessment of individuals with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 16 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.1007121 (2022). Paulhus, D. L. & Reid, D. B. Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317 https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.2.307 (1991). Murphy, B. A. & Lilienfeld, S. O. Are self-report cognitive empathy ratings valid proxies for cognitive empathy ability? Negligible meta-analytic relations with behavioral task performance. Psychological Assessment, 31, 1062–1072 https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000732 (2019). Sassenrath, C. “Let me show you how nice I am”: Impression management as bias in empathic responses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 752–760 https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619884566 (2019). Sunahara, C. S., Rosenfield, D., Alvi, T., Wallmark, Z., Lee, J., Fulford, D., & Tabak, B. A. Revisiting the association between self-reported empathy and behavioral assessments of social cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001226 (2022). Cameron, D., Hutcherson, C., Ferguson, A. M., Scheffer, J. A., Hadjiandreou, E., & Inzlicht, M. Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 962–976 https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000595 (2019). Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. Dissociating the ability and propensity for empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 163–166 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.011 (2014). Heym, N., Firth, J., Kibowski, F., Sumich, A., Egan, V., & Bloxsom, C. A. Empathy at the heart of darkness: Empathy deficits that bind the dark triad and those that mediate indirect relational aggression. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00095 (2019). Pajevic, M., Vukosavljevic-Gvozden, T., Stevanovic, N., & Neumann, C. S. The relationship between the dark tetrad and a two-dimensional view of empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 125–130 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.009 (2018). Puthillam, A., Karandikar, S., & Kapoor, H. I see how you feel: How the dark triad recognizes emotions. Current Psychology, 40, 3966–3973 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00359-x (2019). Lishner, D. A., Vitacco, M. J., Hong, P. Y., Mosley, J., Miska, K., & Stocks, E. L. Evaluating the relation between psychopathy and affective empathy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1161–1181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x11421891 (2011). Mihailides, S., Galligan, R., & Bates, G. Adaptive psychopathy: Empathy and psychopathy are not mutually exclusive. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2 https://doi.org/10.4172/2475-319x.1000125 (2017). Heym, N., Kibowski, F., Bloxsom, C. A., Blanchard, A., Harper, A., Wallace, L., Firth, J., & Sumich, A. The dark empath: Characterising dark traits in the presence of empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110172 (2021). Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on psychological science , 2, 396–403 (2007). White, B. A. Who cares when nobody is watching? Psychopathic traits and empathy in prosocial behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 116–121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.033 (2014). Doerfler, S. M., Tajmirriyahi, M., Ickes, W., & Jonason, P. K. The self-concepts of people with dark triad traits tend to be weaker, less clearly defined, and more state-related. Personality and Individual Differences, 180, 110977 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110977 (2021). Johnson, S. L., Leedom, L. J., & Muhtadie, L. The dominance behavioral system and psychopathology: Evidence from self-report, observational, and biological studies. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 692–743 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027503 (2012). Inesi, M. E. & Rios, K. How prosocial actors use power hierarchies to build moral reputation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 106, 104441 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104441 (2023). Snyder, Mark & Kiviniemi, Marc T. Getting what they came for: How power influences the dynamics and outcomes of interpersonal interaction. Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology. 13 https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/13 (2001). ten Brinke, L., Liu, C. C., Keltner, D., & Srivastava, S. B. Virtues, vices, and political influence in the U.S. Senate. Psychological Science, 27, 85–93 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615611922 (2016). Gervais, M. M., Kline, M., Ludmer, M., George, R., & Manson, J. H. The strategy of psychopathy: Primary psychopathic traits predict defection on low-value relationships. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 280, 20122773. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2773 (2013). Barelds, D. P., Wisse, B., Sanders, S., & Laurijssen, L. M. No regard for those who need it: The moderating role of follower self-esteem in the relationship between leader psychopathy and leader self-serving behavior. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01281 (2018). Blickle, G., Schütte, N., & Genau, H. A. Manager psychopathy, trait activation, and job performance: A multi-source study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 450–461 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2018.1475354 (2018). Glenn, A. L., Efferson, L. M., Iyer, R., & Graham, J. Values, goals, and motivations associated with psychopathy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36, 108–125 https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2017.36.2.108 (2017). Spantidaki Kyriazi, Foteini, et al. "Emotion goals: A missing piece in research on psychopathy and emotion regulation." Journal of personality disorders 35, 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2020_34_488 (2021) Arbuckle, N. L. & Cunningham, W. A. Understanding everyday psychopathy: Shared group identity leads to increased concern for others among undergraduates higher in psychopathy. Social Cognition, 30, 564–583. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.5.564 (2012). Brazil, K. J. Why might psychopathy develop? Beyond a protective function: A commentary on Zara et al. (2023). Journal of Criminal Psychology , 14, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-04-2023-0023 (2023).(2023). Groat, L. L. & Shane, M. S. A motivational framework for psychopathy: Toward a reconceptualization of the disorder. European Psychologist, 25, 92–103 https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000394 (2020). Tortoriello, G. K., Hart, W., & Breeden, C. J. Of malevolence and morality: Psychopathy dimensions are conducive to helping in highly-distressing moral dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109759 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109759 (2020). Eisenbarth, H., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Yarkoni, T. Using a genetic algorithm to abbreviate the psychopathic personality inventory–revised (PPI-R). Psychological Assessment, 27 , 194–202 https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000032 (2015). Lilienfeld, S. O. & Widows, M. R. Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised . Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc (2005). Ruchensky, J. R., Edens, J. F., Donnellan, M. B., & Witt, E. A. Examining the reliability and validity of an abbreviated psychopathic personality inventory—Revised (PPI-R) in four samples. Psychological Assessment, 29, 238–244 https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000335 (2017). Shane, Matthew S. The Motivation to Empathize Scale - Indexing Virtuous and Nonvirtuous Motives to Empathize. PsyArXiv . https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e7gxu (2020). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterialsHighPsychopathicTraitIndividualsDecisionstoEmpathizeareInfluencedbyPowerDynamics.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4002136","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":277893699,"identity":"91bace6e-ec0a-41ca-bfd6-c3883e479570","order_by":0,"name":"Kirsten Stewart","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ontario Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kirsten","middleName":"","lastName":"Stewart","suffix":""},{"id":277893702,"identity":"b89b0242-7bf2-4454-bc85-a3b510722bc9","order_by":1,"name":"Matthew Shane","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ontario Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Matthew","middleName":"","lastName":"Shane","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-03-01 05:14:45","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4002136/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4002136/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":52452732,"identity":"ee9edaa0-f077-4b69-bbc0-9fd616cb89be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-11 19:17:37","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":269914,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency of Empathic Choices as a Function of PPI-R-40 Scores and Power Dynamic Classifications\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpathic choices in the ECT differed as a function of psychopathic traits and the power dynamics of the scenario. Individuals with heightened psychopathic traits were more likely to empathize for nonvirtuous reasons when the scenario depicted them in a position of power over the target, yet more likely to empathize for virtuous reasons when the scenario depicted the target in a position of power over them. This may suggest the strategic use of empathy to act conciliatorily versus exploitatively as the context allows.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4002136/v1/476fd3aac1a11c306b2540f0.png"},{"id":55350536,"identity":"56b46bca-906d-4201-b6db-2a70602f88e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-26 05:45:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":779560,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4002136/v1/88379bd3-8637-428b-bae8-ba02caaa7a26.pdf"},{"id":52452758,"identity":"f2fa0c2e-27ae-487d-b691-03c184ef6826","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-11 19:17:41","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":92305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterialsHighPsychopathicTraitIndividualsDecisionstoEmpathizeareInfluencedbyPowerDynamics.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4002136/v1/47c2b66aecdea4b5721106f0.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"High Psychopathic Trait Individuals’ Decisions to Empathize are Influenced by Power Dynamics ","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePsychopathy is a personality disorder traditionally conceptualized with two factors, consisting of interpersonal/emotional (e.g. manipulativeness, callousness, lack of remorse) and behavioural/criminogenic (e.g. impulsivity, irresponsibility, criminal versatility) features, respectively [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. The interpersonal/emotional features are often deemed particularly core to the disorder, and recent research has identified the most central feature as a \u0026lsquo;calloused/lack of empathy\u0026rsquo; (in particular, \u003cem\u003eaffective\u003c/em\u003e empathy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]). Thus, gaining an improved conceptualization of the psychopathic individual\u0026rsquo;s empathic deficits may be particularly important for understanding the underlying nature of the disorder.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditionally, this lack of affective empathy has been believed to stem from a core deficit in either emotional and/or cognitive processes that preclude the ability to effectively process emotional information [e.g. 4, 5, 6]. For instance, the Low Fear hypothesis argues that the psychopathic individual lacks the ability to experience normal levels of fear [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], the Violence Inhibition Model argues that the psychopathic individual experiences an insufficient sensitivity to others\u0026rsquo; social distress cues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e] (see also related brain-based models: the Differential Amygdala Activation hypothesis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]), and the Response-Modulation Hypothesis argues that the psychopathic individual is unable to automatically shift attention away from dominant, goal-oriented attentional sets [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] (see also the Attentional Bottleneck Theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]). While these theories differ in terms of the hypothesized source of the psychopathic individual\u0026rsquo;s empathic challenges, common among them is the belief that they are rooted in a core \u003cem\u003edeficit\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother possibility is that the psychopathic individual experiences a reduced \u003cem\u003emotivation\u003c/em\u003e to empathize. Indeed, empathy has itself been recently conceptualized as a motivation [see 10, 11]. Moreover, several recent studies from our lab and others support the notion that the psychopathic individual \u003cem\u003ecan\u003c/em\u003e experience empathy (at least under certain circumstances), and that observed reductions may be related to their motivational stance. Some of this work has made use of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. For instance, Arbuckle and Shane [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] reported that offenders with high psychopathic features showed lower empathy-related brain activity when passively viewing images of other people in pain, but that these reductions normalized when they were asked to specifically try to empathize with the target [see also 13, 14]. Other work has used self-report measures to investigate dispositional levels of empathic motivation. For instance, Kajonius and Bj\u0026ouml;rkman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] reported that Dark Triad traits (of which psychopathy is one such trait) were negatively related to dispositional empathy (as measured via the Interpersonal Reactivity Index; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]), but \u003cem\u003epositively\u003c/em\u003e (albeit weakly) related to empathic ability (as measured via the Multifaceted Empathy Test; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]). Shane and colleagues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] went one step further and utilized the \u003cem\u003eMotivation to Empathize (MtE)\u003c/em\u003e scale to investigate the specific motivations that may drive empathic processing in individuals with heightened psychopathic traits. The MtE explicitly asks individuals to indicate how much they would care to know what a variety of different people (e.g. their mother, their boss, a stranger) were thinking or feeling for a variety of either \u0026lsquo;virtuous\u0026rsquo; (e.g. because they care about the other person, because they don\u0026rsquo;t like to see them in pain) and \u0026lsquo;non-virtuous\u0026rsquo; (e.g. because they want to get something from the person, because they may want to manipulate the person) reasons. Results indicated that individuals with heightened psychopathic traits showed a \u003cem\u003ehigher\u003c/em\u003e overall motivation to empathize; however, those motivations were more often driven by non-virtuous, rather than virtuous, motives. Thus, while individuals with heightened psychopathic traits consistently exhibit attenuated empathy in standard laboratory experiments, the extent to which this attenuation is due to a true inability to do so remains an open question [see also 19].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne potential criticism of the existing work is that participants\u0026rsquo; empathic tendencies are not generally evaluated within a true free-choice environment. In Kajonius and Bj\u0026ouml;rkman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] and Shane et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] participants simply provided self-reported indicators of how they \u003cem\u003ethought\u003c/em\u003e they would act; and in Arbuckle and Shane [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] and Meffert et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] participants were explicitly directed to try to empathize with the targets. Thus, the extent to which participants would actually \u003cem\u003echoose\u003c/em\u003e to empathize in an unconstrained setting remains unclear. This may well be important, given well-known divergence between self-reported and behavioural outcomes (e.g. [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR21 CR22\" citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]). With this in mind, participants in the present study were asked to complete an \u003cem\u003eEmpathic Choice Task\u003c/em\u003e (ECT; a modified version of Cameron et al.\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eEmpathic Selection Task\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]) within which the extent to which level of psychopathic traits would relate to the frequency that participants freely chose to empathize could be measured. In Cameron et al.\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] original version, participants were presented with images of various individuals and were asked to freely choose to either a) empathize with the target, or b) merely observe the target in a detached fashion. In this way, participants\u0026rsquo; natural propensity to empathize [see 25] could be more closely assessed. For the present study, we modified the ECT task so that it could separately evaluate one\u0026rsquo;s motivation to empathize \u003cem\u003evirtuously\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003enon-virtuously.\u003c/em\u003e To this end, participants were presented with three choices on each trial instead of two: a) \u0026lsquo;share feelings for the person\u0026rsquo;s benefit\u0026rsquo;, b) \u0026lsquo;share feelings for your own benefit\u0026rsquo;, or c) \u0026lsquo;merely observe\u0026rsquo;. Based on the findings from Shane and colleagues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e], it was hypothesized that: 1) psychopathic traits would show no relationship to the overall frequency of total empathic choices (thus, participants with higher psychopathic traits would choose to empathize just as often as those with lower psychopathic traits), but 2) psychopathic traits would differentially relate to the frequency with which empathy was chosen for virtuous and non-virtuous reasons (i.e. psychopathic traits would correlate negatively with the frequency of virtuous choices to empathize and positively with the frequency of non-virtuous choices to empathize).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMissing Data\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipant\u0026rsquo;s data on a given measure was included in final analyses if they completed at least 75% of that assessment. This led to the exclusion of three participants\u0026rsquo; PPI-R-40 data, and 12 to 17 participants\u0026rsquo; MtE data (depending on the specific subscale). In addition, three participants were excluded because their data was deemed an outlier for falling more than three standard deviations beyond the mean. For all included participants, any missing data was handled via mean substitution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePersonality Measures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e displays means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations between all PPI-R-40 and MtE measures (see also Appendix B for supplementary details). PPI-R-40 scores were normally distributed (skewness: \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20; kurtosis \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18; Shapiro\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Wilk: \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.10) with a mean score typical of an undergraduate population (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.20, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.28). Males (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.32, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20) tended to score higher in psychopathy than females (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;103, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.15, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.30, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(135)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), as is also fairly customary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal self-reported motivations to empathize (on the \u003cem\u003eMotivation to Empathize\u003c/em\u003e scale) were also normally distributed (skewness\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.21, kurtosis\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.91; Shapiro-Wilk: \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and indicated that participants showed moderate predispositions to empathize with the targets in some fashion (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.49, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.72). That said, participants tended to report higher levels of virtuous (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.55, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.74) than non-virtuous (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.94, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.33) motivations, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(132)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, overall. Females reported higher levels of virtuous motives (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.64, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.73) than did males (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.38, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.73); \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(139) \u003cem\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e -2.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with previous work, correlational analyses identified a positive relationship between PPI-R-40 total scores and total self-reported motivations to empathize, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005, and subsequent analyses suggested that this was due to an increased motivation to empathize non-virtuously, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, but not virtuously, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29. To more formally assess this, we conducted a repeated-measures ANCOVA, with MtE Motivation Type (\u003cem\u003evirtuous\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003enon-virtuous\u003c/em\u003e) as a within-subject variable and PPI-R-40 total score entered as a covariate. This analysis revealed a main effect of Motivation Type, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,130)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, which confirmed that participants held greater virtuous than non-virtuous motivations to empathize, a main effect of PPI-R-40, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,130)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, which confirmed that PPI-R-40 scores were positively related to a greater motivation to empathize overall, and a significant PPI-R-40 x Motivation Type interaction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,130)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, which confirmed that PPI-R-40 scores were positively correlated with non-virtuous, but not virtuous, motivations to empathize.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive and Correlational Data Regarding Psychopathic Traits, Motivations to Empathize and Empathic Choices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"14\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c14\" colnum=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePsychopathic Traits (via the\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003ePPI-R-40\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c14\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Score\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-reported Motivations (via the\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eMtE\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c14\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirtuous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.090\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-Virtuous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.94\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.291\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.153\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.235\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.390\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.798\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEmpathic Choices (via the\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eECT\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c14\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirtuous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.457\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.245\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.230\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-Virtuous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.232\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.337\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.149\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.352\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Empathic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.051\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.153\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.113\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.199\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.516\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.545\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMerely Observe\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.144\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.137\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.173*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.520\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.560\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"14\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e PPI-R-40 and MtE scores represent mean values; ECT scores represent frequency counts. * \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEmpathic Choice Task\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe task succeeded in extracting a sufficient number of each choice type to support full analyses. Participants chose to empathize virtuously (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.38 trials (39.3%); \u003cem\u003eSD\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;8.68) significantly more often than they chose to empathize virtuously (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.21 trials (33.5%); \u003cem\u003eSD\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;9.98), which they again chose significantly more often than they chose to merely observe (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.70 trials (26.2%); \u003cem\u003eSD\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;10.18; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,298)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, all planned comparisons \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). As may be expected, given the reciprocal nature of virtuous and non-virtuous choices in the ECT task (where one choice necessarily negated the other), the frequency with which virtuous and non-virtuous choices were made was negatively correlated, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.35, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. No gender-related effects were noted \u003cem\u003e(all p\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.25).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelational analyses indicated that PPI-R-40 scores were unrelated to the frequency of empathic choices made on the ECT (all \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.25). To assess these relationships more formally, a repeated-measures ANCOVA was conducted with ECT Motivation Type (\u003cem\u003evirtuous, non-virtuous, merely observe\u003c/em\u003e) entered as a within-subject variable and PPI-R-40 entered as a covariate. This analysis confirmed no main effects of Motivation Type, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,290)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.43, or of PPI-R-40, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,148)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.81, and no PPI-R-40 x Motivation Type interaction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,290)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98. Thus, all participants chose to empathize with similar frequency, regardless of PPI-R-40 scores.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the overall non-significant differences in empathic choices, it was appreciated that the ECT scenarios differed in potentially important ways. For instance, some scenarios depicted situations in which the participant would hold power over the target (e.g. \u003cem\u003eyou just beat someone in a high-stakes game\u003c/em\u003e), while other scenarios depicted situations in which the target would have held some power over the participant (e.g. \u003cem\u003eyou are being evaluated by your driving test instructor\u003c/em\u003e). Given work indicating that that decisions to empathize can be sensitive to contextual power dynamics, we post-hoc categorized the 90 ECT scenarios into three categories based on the perceived power relationship portrayed within that scenario. Specifically, scenarios that depicted situations in which the target was portrayed as holding power over the participant (e.g. the target was a boss, a parent, a policeman, in a position of strength) were categorized as \u003cem\u003eParticipant-over-Target\u003c/em\u003e scenarios, scenarios that depicted situations in which the target was portrayed as holding power over the target (e.g. the target was a child, an employee, a victim, in a position of weakness) were categorized as \u003cem\u003eTarget-over-Participant\u003c/em\u003e scenarios, and scenarios in which no obvious power relationship existed (e.g. the target was a sibling, a stranger, in no position of strength or weakness) were categorized as \u003cem\u003eNeutral\u003c/em\u003e scenarios; see Appendix F for classification designations).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing this classification process, we undertook two similar repeated-measures ANCOVAs (one for virtuous choices and one for non-virtuous choices) within which Power Type (\u003cem\u003eParticipant-over-Target, Target-over-Participant\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eNeutral\u003c/em\u003e) was entered as a within-subject factor and PPI-R-40 total score was entered as a covariate. Both ANCOVAs revealed main effects of Power Type (virtuous empathy: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,219)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001; non-virtuous empathy: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,238)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. Subsequent one-sample t-tests indicated that virtuous empathy was more often chosen when the participant had power over the target (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, and non-virtuous empathy was more often chosen when the target held power over the participant, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001 (see Table A11). Neither ANCOVA revealed a main effect of PPI-R-40 (virtuous choices: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,152)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75; non-virtuous choices: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,152)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89). However, both models revealed significant PPI-R-40 x Power Type interactions that indicated that level of psychopathic traits influenced the tendency towards virtuous versus nonvirtuous choices as a function of the power dynamic (virtuous choices: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,219)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003; non-virtuous choices: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,234)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01. Specifically, higher PPI-R-40 scores predicted significantly fewer virtuous choices (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05), and non-significantly more non-virtuous choices (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.13, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11) in \u003cem\u003eParticipant-over-Target\u003c/em\u003e scenarios, and significantly greater virtuous choices (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07) and non-significantly fewer non-virtuous choices (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.18) in response to \u003cem\u003eTarget-over-Participant\u003c/em\u003e scenarios (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). To further consolidate this effect, we calculated virtuous\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;non-virtuous difference scores for each of the three Power Type conditions. Consistent with the above depiction, PPI-R-40 total scores and virtuous\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;non-virtuous different scores were positively correlated in the \u003cem\u003eTarget-over-Participant\u003c/em\u003e scenarios, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, negatively correlated in the \u003cem\u003eParticipant-over-Target\u003c/em\u003e scenarios, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, and unrelated in the \u003cem\u003eNeutral\u003c/em\u003e scenarios, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.65.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA final RM-ANCOVA was administered to evaluate for differences in the frequency of merely observe choices as a function of power dynamics. This model revealed no significant main effects or interactions (all \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.10).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePPI-R-40 Subcategories\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs individual subcategories of psychopathy may show differential relationships, all ECT-relevant analyses were also evaluated with regard to the eight PPI-R-40 subscales.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, correlational analyses indicated that Fearlessness correlated positively with virtuous choices, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, Machiavellian Egocentricity correlated negatively with virtuous choices, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, and Social Influence correlated positively with non-virtuous choices, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02. For these three subscales, repeated measures ANCOVAs, with Power Type (\u003cem\u003eTarget-over-Participant, Participant-over-Target, Neutral\u003c/em\u003e) entered as a within-subject variable and the PPI-R-40 subscale score entered as a covariate of interest were run to evaluate for potential PPI-R-40 subscale x power dynamics interactions. As these analyses were merely exploratory, control for multiple comparisons were not undertaken. These analyses revealed only one effect of interest: a significant interaction between Machiavellian Egocentricity x Power Type, such that higher Machiavellian Egocentricity was related to decreased frequency of virtuous choices, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.008, and increased frequency of non-virtuous choices, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, in \u003cem\u003eParticipant-over-Target\u003c/em\u003e scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study investigated the extent to which psychopathic traits would influence one\u0026rsquo;s tendency to empathize with people in a wide variety of different social situations. To this end, on each trial participants were presented with a description of people in various scenarios and given the free choice to either: a) empathize for the target\u0026rsquo;s benefit, b) empathize for their own benefit, or c) merely observe. Two \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e hypotheses were formed about the relationship between empathic choices and psychopathic traits: 1) level of psychopathic traits would be unrelated to total empathic choices, but 2) level of psychopathic traits would influence the \u003cem\u003etype of\u003c/em\u003e motivation that underlay the choice to empathize when it was chosen. Specifically, we hypothesized that PPI-R-40 scores would correlate positively with the frequency that empathy was chosen for non-virtuous motives, and (potentially) negatively with the frequency that empathy was chosen for virtuous motives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypothesis one was supported. Overall, participants chose to empathize on 74% of all trials, and this was largely stable across the spectrum of PPI-R-40 scores. Thus, psychopathic traits were largely unrelated to the overall frequency of choices to empathize. This counters a considerable literature that has reported negative relationships between psychopathic features and levels of empathy [e.g. 26, 27, 28, but see 29]. However, it should be noted that most of this existing work has evaluated empathic \u003cem\u003eabilities\u003c/em\u003e, not \u003cem\u003epropensities\u003c/em\u003e [see 25]; and further, that the work that has evaluated propensities has rarely done so within a free-choice environment. Our study thus stands somewhat separate from most existing work, and in so doing suggests that \u0026ndash; regardless of their actual ability to do so \u0026ndash; those with heightened psychopathic traits may \u003cem\u003echoose\u003c/em\u003e to empathize just as often as anyone else (see also [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] regarding psychopathy and empathy not being mutually exclusive and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] regarding labelling high psychopathy / high empathy as Dark Empaths).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur second hypothesis was not entirely supported, however. While some hypothesized effects were seen at the PPI-R-40 subscale level (e.g. Machiavellian egocentricity correlated positively with non-virtuous motives; Social influence correlated negatively with virtuous motives), the hypothesized relationship with total PPI-R-40 scores was not found. Thus, all participants, regardless of total psychopathic traits chose to empathize for virtuous and non-virtuous reasons with approximately equal frequency. In some respects, this too supports the notion that those with heightened psychopathic traits don\u0026rsquo;t differ in their predispositions towards empathy. However, the non-relationship between psychopathic traits and frequency of non-virtuous empathy did run somewhat counter to participants\u0026rsquo; own self-reported \u003cem\u003emotivations\u003c/em\u003e to empathize on the \u003cem\u003eMotivation to Empathize\u003c/em\u003e scale (within which those with heightened psychopathic traits did show expected higher levels of non-virtuous motivations). Thus, there appears to be some discrepancy between participants\u0026rsquo; self-reported motivations to empathize and their actual choices made on the \u003cem\u003eEmpathic Choice Task.\u003c/em\u003e Such self-reported/behavioural discrepancies are not unusual \u0026ndash; indeed, it has long been recognized that self-reported intentions do not necessarily predict real-world behaviour [e.g. 32], in part because social desirability and impression management can lead people to self-report what they believe they \u003cem\u003eshould\u003c/em\u003e do, rather than what they would \u003cem\u003eactually\u003c/em\u003e do [20; see also 21, 22, 23 regarding self-report of empathy specifically]. However, it is interesting that this discrepancy between MtE and ECT scores increased as a function of psychopathic traits. One possibility is that the self-reports from individuals with heightened psychopathic traits are less trustworthy (due either to intended deception or lack of insight). Alternately, it could be that individuals with psychopathic traits were more likely to try to manage their responses on the ECT in line with social desirability demands. While this may seem counter to the concept of the psychopathic individual as a violator of social norms, recent research suggests that psychopathic individuals may be particularly likely to employ impression management strategies to try to manipulate the perceptions of others (but only in public; in private, the opposite appears true [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] (see also [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] which has reported that the self-concepts of individuals with dark triad traits tend to be more state- than trait-dependent).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf the participants with psychopathic traits were particularly aware of the social/contextual demands of the study, then we may anticipate that differences in their empathic choices would reveal themselves in a context-dependent manner. To this end, exploratory analyses revealed that the empathic choices of individuals with heightened psychopathic traits were particularly sensitive to the power dynamic in the depicted scenarios (see also [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]). Specifically, participants with heightened psychopathic traits more frequently chose to empathize for non-virtuous reasons when the scenario placed them in a position of power over the target, yet more frequently chose to empathize for virtuous reasons when the scenario placed the target in a position of power over them. This suggests that when the participant with heightened psychopathic traits felt they were in a position of power they were more likely to act selfishly, for their own gain; in contrast, when they felt they were in a less powerful position they were more likely to act graciously, for the benefit of the other. This pattern was particularly so for individuals higher in the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale of the PPI-R-40. It has long been recognized that a strategic sensitivity to the intricacies of state-dependent power dynamics can be useful \u0026ndash; for instance, for building up one\u0026rsquo;s reputation or for gaining status and resources [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. For instance, individuals with lower power may be more motivated to gain the goodwill of those in higher power, while individuals with higher power may be more motivated to gain information and exert influence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. We may then speculate that the tendency for those with heightened psychopathic traits to empathize virtuously when targets held power over them could represent an attempt to gain power (see [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]) or a profitable connection [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] by behaving cooperative or conciliatory. In contrast, their tendency to empathize non-virtuously when they held power over the targets could represent an attempt to exploit or dominate [see 40, 41, 42]. Of potential import, both of these cases may be viewed as examples of the individual with heightened psychopathic traits employing empathy in a contextually specific way, as a function of their own unique (but not illogical or irrational) situational goals and motivations [see 43]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis characterization of the psychopath as a logical and rational being has a consistent presence in both academic and popular writings. And yet this characterization has rarely infused itself into underlying etiological theories of the disorder. Rather, most theories continue to exist as \u003cem\u003edeficit-based theories\u003c/em\u003e, wherein the psychopathic individual is deemed victim to cognitive or emotional dysfunction that prevents them from making wise, or socially appropriate, decisions [e.g. 4, 5, 6]. Certainly, the present findings would require replication; however, they also contribute to a growing body of work that has been increasingly questioning these deficit-based theories [e.g. 12, 18, 28, 45]. Instead, they support conceptualization of the psychopath as a rational agent whose emotional tendencies may be different, but not necessary dysfunctional (see [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study is not without its limitations, of course. First, while the sample size (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;158) was largely appropriate to test hypothesized effects it may have been somewhat underpowered for identifying some of the interactive effects that were investigated. For instance, the power-related effects \u0026ndash; which essentially represent a 3-way interaction \u0026ndash; only reached trend status. We anticipate that a larger sample will have a greater opportunity to reveal the full nature of this effect, and welcome future work oriented towards this goal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, recruitment relied exclusively on undergraduate psychology students from a post-secondary institution in Canada, and measurement of psychopathic traits was handled via a well-validated self-report instrument. A rich literature supports the validity of these recruitment and assessment procedures; nonetheless, the extent to which the present results will generalize to general populations or to forensic populations with PCL-R-assessed psychopathy, will require additional testing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the ECT is a relatively new measure of behavioural empathy that has yet to receive comprehensive validity/reliability testing. That said, we found considerable overlap between participants\u0026rsquo; responses on the ECT and the MtE, which has previously received independent validation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. We welcome future work that aims to further assess the response validity of the ECT (our lab is currently invested in several related projects), however, this ECT/MtE relationship does provide valuable preliminary evidence for the validity of the task. Finally, while the ECT may be viewed as a significant improvement on self-reported assessments of empathy, by assessing \u003cem\u003edecisions to at\u003c/em\u003e, the task itself still technically relied on self-report. That is, participants still \u003cem\u003eself-reported\u003c/em\u003e how they would act in each presented scenario. Thus, ECT metrics may remain somewhat influenced by participants\u0026rsquo; willingness and/or ability to accurately report how they would act in those scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture studies could examine whether these results would be found among other populations, especially clinical psychopathy populations. Studies could further attempt to elucidate what contextual factors might promote engaging in virtuous or non-virtuous empathy among psychopathic populations. Would individuals with high psychopathy show a distinctive increase in non-virtuous empathy once specific goals are induced (such as those that align with values of power, excitement, or promotion)? Would a larger inclusion of others in their \u0026lsquo;in-group\u0026rsquo; be associated with higher virtuous empathy (motivations or choices)? Would measuring participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of long-term benefit/gain when choosing to empathize reveal some choices denoted as \u0026lsquo;virtuous\u0026rsquo; as being, instead, underlyingly non-virtuous (and would such underhandedly non-virtuous choices correlate with psychopathy)? Additionally, further research could seek to control for the influence or measure the contribution of factors such as emotional intelligence, social-desirability, and depth of engagement and mentalization in the social scenarios for individuals with psychopathy. Finally, as empathy is a mental behaviour (rather than observable), future studies could aim to further clarify the relationship between virtuous/non-virtuous empathic choices and pro-social/anti-social behaviour (as well as the impact of psychopathy and motivations).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne hundred and ninety-one undergraduate students were recruited on a first-come first-served basis from the Ontario Tech University SONA research platform in return for course credit. Of these, 15 were found to be duplicate enrollments due to a system error \u0026ndash; for these 15 cases, only the participants\u0026rsquo; first responses were retained. In addition, 18 participants were removed prior to analysis for the following reasons: 2 did not indicate a fluency in English, and 16 did not complete a large portion (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;25%) of the primary measure. Thus, the final dataset consisted of 158 participants (52 males, 32.9%), ranging in age from 17 to 51 years (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.67, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.44). Participants\u0026rsquo; ethnicity reflected the diversity of the Ontario Tech student population: 46.2% Asian (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;73), 12.7% African American (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20), 21.5% Caucasian (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;34), and 19.6% Other (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31). A majority of participants (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;100, 63.3%) specified English as their first language. See Table A1 for all demographic data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAssessments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDemographics Questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic information was collected via an in-house derived questionnaire and included age, sex, race, and socio-economic status.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePsychopathic Personality Inventory \u0026ndash; Revised (PPI-R-40; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised 40-item short form (PPI-R-40; see Appendix C) is an abbreviated version of the 154-item Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-style scale ranging from 1 (false) to 4 (true), which allows for the calculation of a total score as well as eight subscale scores. The scale shows high validity and reliability, as well as high convergence with the PPI-R (all \u003cem\u003ers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.75) in both university and forensic samples [51].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMotivation to Empathize Scale (MtE; Shane, 2020)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Motivation to Empathize Scale (MtE; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e] see Appendix D) is a self-report instrument designed to measure the strength of one\u0026rsquo;s propensity to experience empathy for a variety of different reasons. Participants are provided with a list of 20 people (i.e. \u0026lsquo;targets\u0026rsquo;; e.g. mother, father, teammate, opponent) and, for each person, are asked to rate on 7-point Likert-scale the extent to which they would care to know what that person is \u0026ldquo;thinking or feeling\u0026rdquo; for each of six motivations. Three of these motivations are \u0026lsquo;virtuous\u0026rsquo;: \u0026hellip;because I have tender concerned feelings for them, \u0026hellip;because I want to protect them, \u0026hellip;because it affects me greatly to see them in pain; the other three are \u0026lsquo;non-virtuous\u0026rsquo;: \u0026hellip;because I may be able to manipulate them to get my way; \u0026hellip;because it\u0026rsquo;s wise to get information that you can use against people later on; \u0026hellip;because of what I can get for them. The MtE has shown preliminary reliability and validity, including a consistent two-factor structure and convergent (for virtuous) and divergent (for non-virtuous) validity with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index\u0026rsquo;s (IRI) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] empathic concern and perspective taking subscales [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEmpathic Choice Task\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Empathic Choice Task (ECT; see Appendix E) was developed as a modified version of the Empathy Selection Task by Cameron et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. In the original task, on each trial participants were presented with the image of a person and were asked to choose to either empathize (i.e. to describe the feelings and experiences of the person) or not empathize (i.e. to describe objective facts about the person). Thus, the task measured the frequency with which participants freely chose to empathize with unknown others. The present study modified the task in two ways. First, instead of using pictures of people, we presented participants with descriptions of different people in specific situations that may elicit empathy (e.g. a homeless man has not eaten for four days). Second, we asked participants to choose between three options instead of two, in order to separately evaluate the choice to empathize virtuously or non-virtuously, or to not empathize. Thus, participants were asked to choose between one of three options: \u0026lsquo;share feelings for the person\u0026rsquo;s benefit\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;share feelings for your own benefit\u0026rsquo;, or \u0026lsquo;merely observe\u0026rsquo;. The frequency with which participants chose each of these three options constituted the primary dependent measures in the task. Specifically, the frequency that they chose to \u0026lsquo;share feelings for the person\u0026rsquo;s benefit\u0026rsquo; represented their motivation to empathize virtuously, the frequency that they chose to \u0026lsquo;share feelings for their own benefit\u0026rsquo; represented their motivation to empathize non-virtuously, and the sum of their virtuous and non-virtuous motivations represented their total motivation to empathize (the frequency that they chose to \u0026lsquo;merely observe\u0026rsquo; indicated their motivation to not empathize; i.e. the reciprocal of total motivations to empathize). For complete details regarding task creation and validation steps, see Appendix F.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll components of the study, including the ECT, were conducted online from home via Ontario Tech\u0026rsquo;s Qualtrics portal. Informed consent was first obtained digitally. Once obtained, participants completed the study task in the following order: the demographics form, the ECT, the PPI-R-40, and the MtE. The ECT was conducted prior to the self-report measures to ensure that cross-measure contamination could not influence the ECT results. Following completion of all study components participants were debriefed and awarded one course credit for their participation in the study. The study was approved by the Ontario Tech University Research Ethics Board (REB #16633) and was performed in accordance with all REB requirements and regulations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnalyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSPSS28 was used for all analyses. Preliminary analyses involved \u003cem\u003ePearson\u003c/em\u003e correlations to replicate reported relationships between psychopathic characteristics (via the PPI-R-40) and motivations to empathize (via the MtE), and to characterize relationships between those measures and the ECT. A preliminary repeated-measures ANOVA was then conducted, with Empathy Type as a within-subject variable, to evaluate for overall difference in the frequency of each choice. Subsequently, a series of similar repeated measures ANCOVAs were conducted, with Empathy Type as the within-subject variable and PPI-R-40 total score as a covariate of interest, to evaluate the relationship between empathic choices and psychopathic traits. Because Mauchley\u0026rsquo;s test showed that the sphericity assumption was not met on several RM-ANOVA analyses, Greenhouse-Geiser or Huyn-Feldt corrected results were reported (if ε\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.75 or ε\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.75, respectively). Relationships between PPI-R-40 subcategories and empathy choices were similarly investigated, though only for exploratory purposes (as power was insufficient to control properly for multiple comparisons across subscales). Finally, we undertook a post-hoc classification of all 90 ECT scenarios into three categories depending whether the scenario portrayed the participant in a position of power over the target (\u003cem\u003eParticipant-over-Target\u003c/em\u003e, e.g. \u0026ldquo;Your child comes to you asking to go to a party\u0026rdquo;), the scenario portrayed the target in a position of power over the participant \u003cem\u003e(Target-over-Participant\u003c/em\u003e, e.g. \u0026ldquo;you are summoned to your boss\u0026rsquo;s office for a chat\u0026rdquo;), or the scenario didn\u0026rsquo;t portray either participant or target in a position of power (\u003cem\u003eNeutral\u003c/em\u003e, e.g. \u0026ldquo;You hear one of your friends gossiping about another\u0026rdquo;). For full details regarding scenario categorizations see Appendix F. A series of repeated measures ANCOVAs (one for virtuous motives, one for non-virtuous motives) were then conducted with Power Type as a within-subject variable to evaluate for potential differences in empathic choices as a function of psychopathic traits and/or power dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis funding was made possible by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant awarded to Dr. Matthew Shane and a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant awarded to Dr. Matthew Shane. We thank both agencies for their generous funding without which this work would not be possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eK.S. and M.S. contributed to all aspects of the project, including the conception and writing of this work, the analysis of study data, and the preparation of this draft for submission. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe would like to offer thanks and appreciation to Myra Leblanc for her help preparing the figures for the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study have been made available to Editorial Board\u0026nbsp;Members and referees at the time of submission and has been made openly available on the Open Science Foundation (OSF) website via the following link: https://osf.io/fz2y4/files/osfstorage/65e7cc3b8992ec03d678868b\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHare, R. D. Psychopathy: A clinical construct who's time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25\u0026ndash;54 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi-org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/10.1177/0093854896023001004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi-org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/10.1177/0093854896023001004\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1996).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerschuere, B., Grothe, A. S., Waldorp, L., Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S., Edens, J., Skeem, J., \u0026amp; Noordhof, A. What features of psychopathy might be central? A network analysis of the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R) in three large samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127, 51\u0026ndash;65 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/95ewr\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31219/osf.io/95ewr\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerschuere, B. \u0026amp; Te Kaat, L. What are the core features of psychopathy? A prototypicality analysis using the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R). Journal of Personality Disorders, 34, 410\u0026ndash;419 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_396\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1521/pedi_2019_33_396\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLykken, D. T. Emotionality and autonomic reactivity: An appraisal. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 2, 49\u0026ndash;55 (1967).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlair, R. A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1\u0026ndash;29. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-p\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-p\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1995).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewman, J. P. \u0026amp; Lorenz, A. R. Response modulation and emotion processing: Implications for psychopathy and other dysregulatory psychopathology. Handbook of Affective Sciences, 904\u0026ndash;929 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195126013.003.0049\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/oso/9780195126013.003.0049\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2003).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoul, C., Killcross, S. \u0026amp; Dadds, M. R. (2012). A model of differential amygdala activation in psychopathy. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review\u003c/em\u003e, 119, 789\u0026ndash;806 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0029342\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0029342\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatterson, C. M. \u0026amp; Newman, J. P. Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological Review, 100, 716\u0026ndash;736 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.4.716\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0033-295x.100.4.716\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1993).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaskin-Sommers, A. R., Curtin, J. J., \u0026amp; Newman, J. P. Specifying the attentional selection that moderates the fearlessness of psychopathic offenders. Psychological Science, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, 226\u0026ndash;234. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610396227\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0956797610396227\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZaki, J. Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1608\u0026ndash;1647 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0037679\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0037679\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCameron, C. D. Motivating empathy: Three methodological recommendations for mapping empathy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12418\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/spc3.12418\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArbuckle, N. L. \u0026amp; Shane, M. S. Up-regulation of neural indicators of empathic concern in an offender population. Social Neuroscience, 12, 386\u0026ndash;390. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2016.1179669\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17470919.2016.1179669\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeffert, H., Gazzola, V., Den Boer, J. A., Bartels, A. A., \u0026amp; Keysers, C. Reduced spontaneous but relatively normal deliberate vicarious representations in psychopathy. Brain, 136, 2550\u0026ndash;2562 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt190\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/brain/awt190\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShane, M. S. \u0026amp; Groat, L. L. Capacity for upregulation of emotional processing in psychopathy: All you have to do is ask. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13, 1163\u0026ndash;1176 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy088\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/scan/nsy088\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKajonius, P. J. \u0026amp; Bj\u0026ouml;rkman, T. Individuals with dark traits have the ability but not the disposition to empathize. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109716 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109716\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2019.109716\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis, M. H. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113\u0026ndash;126 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1983).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLang, P.J., Bradley, M. M., \u0026amp; Cuthbert, B. N. \u003cem\u003eInternational Affective Picture System (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings\u003c/em\u003e. Gainsville (1997).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShane, M., Carrington, F., \u0026amp; Groat, L. L. \u0026ldquo;Sure I can, when I want to\u0026rdquo;: Psychopathic traits are associated with increased motivation to empathize, but not for virtuous reasons. Manuscript in preparation. (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGriem, J., Kolla, N. J., \u0026amp; Tully, J. Key challenges in neurocognitive assessment of individuals with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.1007121\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fnbeh.2022.1007121\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaulhus, D. L. \u0026amp; Reid, D. B. Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307\u0026ndash;317 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.2.307\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037//0022-3514.60.2.307\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1991).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMurphy, B. A. \u0026amp; Lilienfeld, S. O. Are self-report cognitive empathy ratings valid proxies for cognitive empathy ability? Negligible meta-analytic relations with behavioral task performance. Psychological Assessment, 31, 1062\u0026ndash;1072 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000732\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/pas0000732\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSassenrath, C. \u0026ldquo;Let me show you how nice I am\u0026rdquo;: Impression management as bias in empathic responses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 752\u0026ndash;760 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619884566\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1948550619884566\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSunahara, C. S., Rosenfield, D., Alvi, T., Wallmark, Z., Lee, J., Fulford, D., \u0026amp; Tabak, B. A. Revisiting the association between self-reported empathy and behavioral assessments of social cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001226\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/xge0001226\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCameron, D., Hutcherson, C., Ferguson, A. M., Scheffer, J. A., Hadjiandreou, E., \u0026amp; Inzlicht, M. Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 962\u0026ndash;976 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000595\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/xge0000595\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeysers, C., \u0026amp; Gazzola, V. Dissociating the ability and propensity for empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 163\u0026ndash;166 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeym, N., Firth, J., Kibowski, F., Sumich, A., Egan, V., \u0026amp; Bloxsom, C. A. Empathy at the heart of darkness: Empathy deficits that bind the dark triad and those that mediate indirect relational aggression. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00095\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00095\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePajevic, M., Vukosavljevic-Gvozden, T., Stevanovic, N., \u0026amp; Neumann, C. S. The relationship between the dark tetrad and a two-dimensional view of empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 125\u0026ndash;130 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePuthillam, A., Karandikar, S., \u0026amp; Kapoor, H. I see how you feel: How the dark triad recognizes emotions. Current Psychology, 40, 3966\u0026ndash;3973 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00359-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-019-00359-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLishner, D. A., Vitacco, M. J., Hong, P. Y., Mosley, J., Miska, K., \u0026amp; Stocks, E. L. Evaluating the relation between psychopathy and affective empathy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1161\u0026ndash;1181. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x11421891\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0306624x11421891\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMihailides, S., Galligan, R., \u0026amp; Bates, G. Adaptive psychopathy: Empathy and psychopathy are not mutually exclusive. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4172/2475-319x.1000125\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4172/2475-319x.1000125\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeym, N., Kibowski, F., Bloxsom, C. A., Blanchard, A., Harper, A., Wallace, L., Firth, J., \u0026amp; Sumich, A. The dark empath: Characterising dark traits in the presence of empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110172. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110172\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2020.110172\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., \u0026amp; Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on psychological science\u003c/em\u003e, 2, 396\u0026ndash;403 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhite, B. A. Who cares when nobody is watching? Psychopathic traits and empathy in prosocial behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 116\u0026ndash;121 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.033\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.033\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoerfler, S. M., Tajmirriyahi, M., Ickes, W., \u0026amp; Jonason, P. K. The self-concepts of people with dark triad traits tend to be weaker, less clearly defined, and more state-related. Personality and Individual Differences, 180, 110977 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110977\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2021.110977\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson, S. L., Leedom, L. J., \u0026amp; Muhtadie, L. The dominance behavioral system and psychopathology: Evidence from self-report, observational, and biological studies. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 692\u0026ndash;743 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0027503\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0027503\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInesi, M. E. \u0026amp; Rios, K. How prosocial actors use power hierarchies to build moral reputation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 106, 104441 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104441\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104441\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSnyder, Mark \u0026amp; Kiviniemi, Marc T. Getting what they came for: How power influences the dynamics and outcomes of interpersonal interaction. Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology. 13 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/13\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2001).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eten Brinke, L., Liu, C. C., Keltner, D., \u0026amp; Srivastava, S. B. Virtues, vices, and political influence in the U.S. Senate. Psychological Science, 27, 85\u0026ndash;93 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615611922\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0956797615611922\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGervais, M. M., Kline, M., Ludmer, M., George, R., \u0026amp; Manson, J. H. The strategy of psychopathy: Primary psychopathic traits predict defection on low-value relationships. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 280, 20122773. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2773\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rspb.2012.2773\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarelds, D. P., Wisse, B., Sanders, S., \u0026amp; Laurijssen, L. M. No regard for those who need it: The moderating role of follower self-esteem in the relationship between leader psychopathy and leader self-serving behavior. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01281\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01281\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlickle, G., Sch\u0026uuml;tte, N., \u0026amp; Genau, H. A. Manager psychopathy, trait activation, and job performance: A multi-source study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 450\u0026ndash;461 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2018.1475354\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1359432x.2018.1475354\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlenn, A. L., Efferson, L. M., Iyer, R., \u0026amp; Graham, J. Values, goals, and motivations associated with psychopathy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36, 108\u0026ndash;125 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2017.36.2.108\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1521/jscp.2017.36.2.108\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpantidaki Kyriazi, Foteini, et al. \"Emotion goals: A missing piece in research on psychopathy and emotion regulation.\" Journal of personality disorders 35, 57\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2020_34_488\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1521/pedi_2020_34_488\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArbuckle, N. L. \u0026amp; Cunningham, W. A. Understanding everyday psychopathy: Shared group identity leads to increased concern for others among undergraduates higher in psychopathy. Social Cognition, 30, 564\u0026ndash;583. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.5.564\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1521/soco.2012.30.5.564\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrazil, K. J. Why might psychopathy develop? Beyond a protective function: A commentary on Zara \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2023). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Criminal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 14, 16\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-04-2023-0023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/jcp-04-2023-0023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).(2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGroat, L. L. \u0026amp; Shane, M. S. A motivational framework for psychopathy: Toward a reconceptualization of the disorder. European Psychologist, 25, 92\u0026ndash;103 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000394\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1027/1016-9040/a000394\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTortoriello, G. K., Hart, W., \u0026amp; Breeden, C. J. Of malevolence and morality: Psychopathy dimensions are conducive to helping in highly-distressing moral dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109759 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109759\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2019.109759\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEisenbarth, H., Lilienfeld, S. O., \u0026amp; Yarkoni, T. Using a genetic algorithm to abbreviate the psychopathic personality inventory\u0026ndash;revised (PPI-R). Psychological Assessment, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 194\u0026ndash;202 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000032\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/pas0000032\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLilienfeld, S. O. \u0026amp; Widows, M. R. \u003cem\u003ePsychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised\u003c/em\u003e. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuchensky, J. R., Edens, J. F., Donnellan, M. B., \u0026amp; Witt, E. A. Examining the reliability and validity of an abbreviated psychopathic personality inventory\u0026mdash;Revised (PPI-R) in four samples. Psychological Assessment, 29, 238\u0026ndash;244 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000335\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/pas0000335\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShane, Matthew S. The Motivation to Empathize Scale - Indexing Virtuous and Nonvirtuous Motives to Empathize. \u003cem\u003ePsyArXiv\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e7gxu\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31234/osf.io/e7gxu\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"psychopathy, empathy, motivation, choice, power","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4002136/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4002136/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe lack of empathy associated with heightened psychopathic traits is commonly attributed to fundamental emotional and/or cognitive deficits. However, recent studies showing that psychopathic individuals are capable of normative empathy in certain contexts suggest their reduced empathy may instead reflect reduced motivation to empathize. To further evaluate these possibilities,158 university students completed self-report measures of psychopathic traits and motivations to empathize and performed an \u003cem\u003eEmpathic Choice Task\u003c/em\u003e which presented various social situations and asked them to freely choose to either empathize \u003cem\u003evirtuously\u003c/em\u003e (for the target’s benefit), empathize \u003cem\u003enon-virtuously\u003c/em\u003e (for their own benefit), or merely observe. Results indicated that psychopathic traits were unrelated to the overall frequency of empathic choices. However, post-hoc analyses indicated that the motivations underlying these choices varied as a function of situational power dynamics, and this was increasingly so for individuals higher in psychopathic traits. Specifically, psychopathic traits were positively correlated with \u003cem\u003evirtuous\u003c/em\u003e empathy when targets were depicted in positions of power over the participant, but positively related to \u003cem\u003enon-virtuous\u003c/em\u003e empathy when they were depicted in positions of power over the target. These results support motivational theories of psychopathy and highlight the strategic sensitivity of high psychopathic trait individuals to complex socio-contextual dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"High Psychopathic Trait Individuals’ Decisions to Empathize are Influenced by Power Dynamics ","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-03-11 19:16:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4002136/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"081fa406-855f-4697-8c42-9ccbb5732ae0","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 11th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":29275133,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":29275134,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-04-26T05:45:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-03-11 19:16:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4002136","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4002136","identity":"rs-4002136","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}