Relations among psychopathy, moral competence, and moral intuitions in student and community samples

Abstract

Purpose. The nature of moral decision-making in those with pronounced psychopathic traits has been passionately debated, both in scientific literature and in the public policy arena. Research investigating the relationship between psychopathic traits and moral decision-making capacities has been largely inconclusive. However, recent research suggests individuals with elevated psychopathic traits may exhibit abnormal moral intuitions regarding the prevention of harm (Harm) and promotion of fairness (Fairness). Although moral intuitions are widely assumed to be related to moral judgement, no research has simultaneously examined the relations among psychopathy, moral intuition, and moral judgement.Methods. We hypothesized that psychopathic traits would not be directly related to moral judgement outcomes but would be indirectly related by way of Harm and Fairness moral intuitions. To test these hypotheses, 121 undergraduate students and 205 community residents, across two studies, completed measures of psychopathy, moral intuitions, and moral judgement.Results. Higher psychopathy scores were associated with decreased concerns about preventing harm and promoting justice across both samples. Individuals higher in psychopathic traits did not evidence deficits in moral judgement. Conclusions.Our findings indicate that, although individuals with elevated psychopathic traits may organize their sense of morality differently, they can accurately discern moral from immoral decisions.Psychopathy has long been considered a disorder with substantial moral implications. Prichard (1835) referred to psychopathy as 'moral insanity', reflecting the idea that individuals with high levels of psychopathic traits are lacking in basic morality. Ellis (1890) labelled these individuals as 'moral monsters' (p. 17), and Cleckley (1941) described individuals with marked psychopathic traits as lacking a moral sense.These classic clinical descriptions notwithstanding, the nature of the moral deficits ostensibly observed in individuals with elevated levels of psychopathy has been a point of

Altered effective connectivity from the posterior insula to the amygdala mediates the relationship between psychopathic traits and concern with the Harm foundation

“…Our behavioral results demonstrated that T-PTS and P-PTS significantly predicted moral concern with Harm foundation only. This is consistent with previous studies which reported significant association between psychopathic traits and different moral foundations, with the effects being most pronounced for the Harm foundation (Aharoni et al, 2011; Gay et al, 2018; Glenn et al, 2009a; Marshall et al, 2018). Perception of harm is intuitive, forming the fundamental basis of moral judgment (Haidt & Joseph, 2004; Schein & Gray, 2017).…”

“…Therefore, the relationship between psychopathic traits and moral cognition is of great interest to many researchers (Blair, 2007; Gao & Tang, 2013; Marsh et al, 2011). Moral Foundation Theory (MFT), a widely known framework on human morality, provides a new perspective for investigating the relationship between psychopathic traits and morality (Gay et al, 2018). According to this theory, morality consists of five foundations: (1) Harm (preventing harm to others); (2) Fairness (preserving fairness, equal rights, and justice); (3) Loyalty (practicing loyalty to one’s own group); (4) Authority (respecting authority and social order); and (5) Purity (pursuing purity or sanctity of body, mind, and soul) (Haidt, 2012; Haidt & Graham, 2007).…”

Psychopathic traits predict moral judgements in five moral domains: The mediating effect of unpleasantness

“…Two opposing views exist regarding the moral capacity of individuals with elevated psychopathic traits. Some researchers have argued that individuals with elevated psychopathic traits are morally deficient (Blair, 1995; Gao & Tang, 2013), whereas others have claimed that they have the intact capacity to differentiate right from wrong (Cima, Tonnaer, & Hauser, 2010; Gay, Vitacco, Hackney, Beussink, & Lilienfeld, 2018; Tassy, Deruelle, Mancini, Leistedt, & Wicker, 2013). Each of the two views is supported by evidence from three lines of research: (1) measures of sacrificial moral dilemmas – people must make moral decisions about whether they should sacrifice a small number of people to save a larger group (Bartels & Pizarro, 2011); (2) Kohlbergian measures of moral reasoning – people must offer justifications for their decisions in a set of moral dilemmas (Marshall, Watts, Frankel, & Lilienfeld, 2017); and (3) moral foundation measures – people complete the Moral Foundation Questionnaire (MFQ) to indicate the considerations that are most relevant to their moral judgements (Glenn, Iyer, Graham, Koleva, & Haidt, 2009a).…”

“…For measures of sacrificial moral dilemmas, some evidence has demonstrated significant associations between elevated psychopathic traits and increased sacrificial moral choices (Bartels & Pizarro, 2011;Gao & Tang, 2013;Koenigs, Kruepke, Zeier, & Newman, 2012). However, other evidence has shown that individuals with elevated psychopathic traits do not differ in moral judgements from those low on the traits (Cima et al, 2010;Gay et al, 2018;Pujol et al, 2012;Tassy et al, 2013). Research employing Kohlbergian measures of moral reasoning has also yielded inconsistent findings.…”

Moral Competence and Foundations of Moral Judgment. An Empirical Exploration of Concepts and New Possibilities for Understanding

“…Value Survey (RVS) (Rokeach 1973) respectively. So far, the results from these studies proved inconclusive, with some studies showing no influence at all (Gay et al 2018), or displaying weak relations (Ostini & Ellerman 1997), or some partial relations (Helkama 1982;Diessner, Mayton, & Dolen 1993;Lan, Gowing, Rieger, McMahon, & King 2010).…”