MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298326858 · doi:10.1521/pedi.2022.36.5.583

Insensitivity to Suffering: Psychopathic Traits and Perception of Others' Pain

2022· article· en· W4298326858 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberley Kaseweter, Matthew Browne, Kenneth M. Prkachin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyPsychologyEmpathyPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyAffect (linguistics)Pain perceptionClinical psychologyPersonalityPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite growing evidence that psychopathy entails reduced emotional processing, the relationship between psychopathic traits and third-person pain perception is poorly understood. This study directly examined perception of others' pain in a sample of male and female students (N = 105) who completed the Self-Report Psychopathy scale (SRP-III) and the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ). Participants watched a video of 60 one-second clips of other people experiencing pain. Following each clip, participants rated the perceived level of pain intensity and pain unpleasantness. Psychopathic traits were unrelated to response bias, suggesting that individuals high in psychopathic traits were no more or less likely to impute pain to others. However, higher levels of psychopathic traits, particularly callous affect and antisocial behavior, were associated with a decreased ability to discriminate others' pain. Sensitivity and response bias were unrelated to TEQ scores. These findings provide novel insights into the influence of psychopathic traits on emotional processing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207