Decision Making, Emotion Recognition and Childhood Traumatic Experiences in Murder Convicts Imprisoned with Aggravated Life Sentence: A Prison Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impairments in social cognitive domains can lead to serious social problems like ostracization and criminal behavior (1,2).Among the different developmental psychiatric disorders, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and psychopathy stand out as primary causes of a constellation of problematic interpersonal and social features, including impulsivity, poor emotional recognition of the self (alexithymia), and other (affective empathy and theory of mind) leading to brutality, aggression, violent acts, hence criminality (2-5).These disorders can lead to sociological, legal, and psychiatric complications, which may subsequently cause a series of interrelated issues (6).Antisocial personality disorder is closely associated with criminal behavior and presents significant challenges to mental health professionals and society regarding prognosis, dynamics, and treatment.The etiology is complex, involving factors such as childhood trauma, genetic, environmental and psychosocial factors, comorbid psychiatric disorders.Introduction: Decision-making and emotion recognition are two fundamental themes in social cognition.Disorders in these areas can lead to interpersonal, psychosocial, and legal problems for the individual and society.The likelihood of consequent aggression and crime makes them foci of forensic psychiatry over time.In this study, two developmental disorders that have a clear relationship with crime, that are antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), and psychopathy are investigated for their relationship with these social cognitive deficits.Methods: The present study involved 23 male prison inmates who were diagnosed with both antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy, as well as 23 control participants who were matched for age, gender, and level of education.Following the psychiatric interview, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET), the Iowa Gambling Test (IGT), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), Defense Styles Questionnaire (DSQ), Childhood Psychic Trauma Scale (CTQ), Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) were administered to all participants.Results: The results of the study showed that ASPD group performed statistically worse than healthy controls in TAS, CTQ, all items of DSQ, PCL-R Factor 1 and 2, and all the IGT scores (p<0.05).There were no statistically significant difference between in the RMET test performances Conclusion: These results suggest that ASPD and psychopathy lead to impaired decision-making behaviors due to the inability to recognize one's own emotions and impulsivity, and that these characteristics play a critical role in the criminal behavior of individuals.In addition, contrary to expectations, the results of affective theory of mind assessed with the RMET showed similar characteristics in homicide convicts and healthy controls.These data indicate the need for further research in the field of forensic psychiatry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".