The psychopathic heart: empathy, interoception, and psychopathy traits in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The link between empathy and psychopathy phenotypes (grandiose-manipulative, callous-unemotional and impulsive-irresponsible) as well as its underlying mechanisms, are far from being consensual, especially in developmental samples. To explore the differential associations between psychopathy phenotypes, empathy domains (cognitive and affective), and interoception in a community sample of adolescents. 64 adolescents (14.95 years; 42.2% males) completed an online survey that assessed psychopathy phenotypes (Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory), cognitive and affective empathy (Basic Empathy Scale), and interoceptive accuracy (Interoceptive Accuracy Scale) as well as alexithymia for control purposes (Toronto Alexithymia Scale). Zero-order correlations, t-tests, and hierarchical linear regressions were employed for statistical analysis. Callous-unemotional traits were negatively correlated with both empathy domains, while impulsive-irresponsible traits were only negatively correlated to cognitive empathy, despite these associations being marginally significant in multivariate analysis. Grandiose-manipulative traits were not related to either empathy domain. There were no associations between interoceptive accuracy and psychopathy phenotypes after controlling for age, sex, and alexithymia. Empathy domains seem to be differentially related to psychopathy phenotypes in adolescents. The contributing role of interoception in this association should be further explored using larger sample sizes and alternative measures.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".