Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Hancock (2011): individual differences - Coggle Diagram
Hancock (2011): individual differences
Background
Previous studies have claimed psychopathy has a biological basis. However this means the whole concept of psychopaths is controversal because if there is a biological cause, people may not be responsible for their crimes. Rehabilitation may fail.
Aim
The overall aim was to examine the language characteristics of psychopaths on 3 major characteristics:
wanted to see if their way of thinking (viewing the world as theirs for the taking) was reflected in the form of conjunctions
satisfying basic needs is more important than higher level needs, wanted to see if their language correlated to more basic needs, rather than higher level needs.
emotional deficit, a. fewer emotional words, b. disfluencies , c. language that reflects increased psychological distancing.
Method
Quasi experiment
Design
Independent measures
Variables
IV: psychopath/ non-psychopath
DV: type of language used.
Sample
52 men from a canadian prison being held for murder, mean age when murder took place was 28.9 years.
Sampling method
Volunteered to take part, and all had previously admitted their crimes
Procedure
The PCL-R was used to determine whether someone is a psychopath or not. 20 criteria assessed: 0-2 for a max score of 40. Factor 1 assesses interpersonal and affective traits and factor 2 assesses traits that indicate an antisocial lifestyle. The cut-off point was a score of 30 but previously researchers had dropped this to 25 and Hancock followed this score.
14 offenders were classed as psychopaths and 38 non-psychopaths. No significance differences between the groups in age or time since murder committed. All were blind to the psychopathy scores of offenders. All offenders were briefed on the study. Offenders asked to describe in detail from start to finish of their murder commitments. Interviews were recorded and transcripts were written.
Results
Each psychopath said 2201 words each and non said 2552 each on average. Psychopaths used more conjunctions than non. Psychopaths used significantly more words connected to basic needs than the non psychos- mostly connected to family. Psychopaths used 33% more disfluencies, past tense words were used more than non-psychopaths.
Conclusions
From the 'idiosyncratic' way in which psychos describe powerful emotional events they operate on a primitive but rational level. Narratives from the psychopaths included a higher level of instrumentality and more explanation themes, focused on self-preservation and bodily needs, were more disfluent, past orientated and had less emotional intensity relative to non-offenders.