Dissociating cognitive and affective empathy across psychopathy dimensions: The role of interoception and alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the associations between psychopathy dimensions (triarchic phenotypes and classical factors), empathy domains (cognitive and affective), and interoception (interoceptive attention and accuracy) while accounting for the putative role of alexithymia. A community sample (n = 515) completed an online survey encompassing: Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (boldness, meanness, disinhibition); Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (primary and secondary psychopathy); Body Perception Questionnaire (interoceptive attention); Interoceptive Accuracy Scale; Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Hierarchical linear regression models were implemented for hypothesis-driven analyses examining the associations between psychopathy, empathy, and interoception while controlling for sex, age, and alexithymia. Exploratory path models were employed to investigate alexithymia and/or cognitive empathy as mediators between interoception and psychopathy. Our results largely confirmed the postulated empathy profiles across psychopathy dimensions, as meanness and primary psychopathy displayed a broad empathy impairment, while disinhibition and secondary psychopathy were only associated with diminished cognitive empathy. Importantly, boldness displayed a unique pattern (enhanced cognitive empathy and reduced affective empathy), further reinforcing its importance within the constellation of psychopathy traits. Contrary to our hypotheses, self-perceived interoceptive attention and accuracy were not associated with either psychopathy dimension after controlling for alexithymia. However, interoceptive accuracy and alexithymia were associated with cognitive empathy, while alexithymia was also positively related to all psychopathy dimensions (as expected), despite the unexpected strong and negative association with boldness. Exploratory analyses suggested significant indirect effects (mediation) between interoceptive accuracy and psychopathy via alexithymia and/or cognitive empathy. These mediating effects must be interpreted with caution and future studies should be designed to formally test this model.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".