Feeling, caring, knowing: different types of empathy deficit in boys with psychopathic tendencies and autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

BackgroundEmpathy dysfunction is one of the hallmarks of psychopathy, but it is also sometimes thought to characterise autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Individuals with either condition can appear uncaring towards others. This study set out to compare and contrast directly boys with psychopathic tendencies and boys with ASD on tasks assessing aspects of affective empathy and cognitive perspective taking. The main aim of the study was to assess whether a distinct profile of empathy deficits would emerge for boys with psychopathic tendencies and ASD, and whether empathy deficits would be associated with conduct problems in general, rather than psychopathic tendencies or ASD specifically.MethodsFour groups of boys aged between 9 and 16 years (N = 96) were compared: 1) psychopathic tendencies, 2) ASD, 3) conduct problems and 4) comparison. Tasks were included to probe attribution of emotions to self, empathy for victims of aggression and cognitive perspective-taking ability.ResultsBoys with psychopathic tendencies had a profile consistent with dysfunctional affective empathy. They reported experiencing less fear and less empathy for victims of aggression than comparison boys. Their cognitive perspective-taking abilities were not statistically significantly different from those of comparison boys. In contrast, boys with ASD had difficulties with tasks requiring cognitive perspective taking, but reported emotional experiences and victim empathy that were in line with comparison boys. Boys with conduct problems did not differ from comparison boys, suggesting that the affective empathy deficit seen in boys with psychopathic tendencies was specific to that group, rather than common to all boys with conduct problems.ConclusionsAlthough both groups can appear uncaring, our findings suggest that the affective/information processing correlates of psychopathic tendencies and ASD are quite different. Psychopathic tendencies are associated with difficulties in resonating with other people’s distress, whereas ASD is characterised by difficulties in knowing what other people think.

Dissociable relations between amygdala subregional networks and psychopathy trait dimensions in conduct‐disordered juvenile offenders

“…Behavioral and neurobiological data suggest that in some cases individuals with psychopathic traits can perform particularly well in representing and understanding others' intentions, emotions, and desires (i.e., theory of mind) [Bird and Viding, 2014; Johnson et al, 2014; Jones et al, 2010; O'nions et al, 2014; Sebastian et al, 2012], and this apparently may aid their alleged “social predatorism” [Book et al, 2007; Dolan and Fullam, 2004; Nentjes et al, 2015; Sandvik et al, 2014; Wheeler et al, 2009]. However, our finding could also reflect excessive bottom‐up signaling of motivational salience, which may impair distinguishing one's egocentric desires and values from those of others, and shape a potentially self‐centered/narcissistic profile.…”

Identifying mechanisms that underlie links between COMT genotype and aggression in male adolescents with ADHD

“…Given previous findings (e.g. Jones, Happe, Gilbert, Burnett, & Viding, 2010) highlighting the dissociation of empathy into ‘feeling’/‘resonating’ with another's emotions (affective empathy) versus correctly identifying emotions in others (cognitive empathy), both constructs were assessed using previously published methods (see Van Rijn et al., 2014). After each clip participants completed a questionnaire concerning the recognition of the emotions of the main character (cognitive empathy) and their own emotions while viewing the clip (affective empathy), they were also asked to explain the reason for the emotion (‐s) identified in the main character and themselves.…”

Bullying of children and adolescents with autism spectrum conditions: a ‘state of the field’ review

“…The social experience of children with ASC reads remarkably similarly. In terms of social status, they are more rejected and less popular than their typically developing peers (Jones et al 2010) and those with other SEND (Humphrey and Symes 2010a) typically have fewer friends (Cairns and Cairns 1994) and more limited social networks (Chamberlain, Kasari, and Rotheram-Fuller 2007) than other children (Locke et al 2013). Furthermore, those friendships that are established are characterised by lower centrality, acceptance, companionship, and reciprocity than is typical (Chamberlain, Kasari, and Rotheram-Fuller 2007).…”