Unfair offers, unfair offenders? Fairness considerations in incarcerated individuals with and without psychopathy

Abstract

Offenders with psychopathy have often committed crimes violating social norms, which may suggest a biased moral reasoning in psychopathy. Yet, as findings on utilitarian decisions remain conflicting, the current study investigated different aspects of fairness considerations in offenders with psychopathy, offenders without psychopathy and healthy individuals (N = 18/14/18, respectively). Unfair offers in a modified Ultimatum Game (UG) were paired with different unselected alternatives, thereby establishing the context of a proposal, and made under opposing intentionality constraints (intentional vs. unintentional). As in previous studies, unfair offers were most often rejected when the alternative was fair and when the offer was made intentionally. Importantly, however, offenders with psychopathy demonstrated a similar rejection pattern to that of healthy individuals, i.e., taking the unselected alternative into account. In contrast, delinquents without psychopathy did not adjust their decision behavior to the alternatives to an offer, suggesting stronger impairments in social decision-making. Crucially, the mechanisms and processes underlying rejection decisions might differ, particularly with regard to cognitive vs. emotional competencies. While preserved cognitive perspective-taking could drive seemingly intact decision patterns in psychopathy, emotional empathy is likely to be compromised.

Emotion recognition and cognitive empathy deficits in adolescent offenders revealed by context-sensitive tasks

“…In addition, the EPT results revealed that AOs had no difficulties to judge the correctness of actions performed by the perpetrator or the punishment deserved. This finding is consistent with previous evidence for adequate moral judgment in offenders ( Cima et al, 2010 ; Schmoll, 2012 ; Radke et al, 2013 ).…”

Behavioral and electrophysiological responses to fairness norm violations in antisocial offenders

“…Our results may thus indicate that AVOs' decisions were rather rational, as they continued to pursue their rational strategy of profit maximization irrespective of whether the offer was made by a social or non-social proposer. Only one previous study directly compared differences between social vs. non-social proposers on gambling behavior in psychopathic offenders and reported differences in the behavioral adjustment to social context variables between psychopathic offenders, non-psychopathic offenders, and healthy controls [12]. Our findings of strategic behavior during different game settings in antisocial individuals are in line with results in healthy individuals indicating that psychopathic traits, such as Machiavellianism [47,6] and coldheartedness [5], are predictive of less emotional and more rational decision-making behavior.…”

“…In contrast, a previous investigation in a community sample reported increased acceptance rates following unfair offers in individuals with high psychopathic traits [13] which points to an insensitivity to unfairness in high psychopathy scorers, whereas another community sampled study found no group differences [14]. The only prior study that manipulated the context (i.e., compared offers generated by a computer with offers made by another human) reported differences in the behavioral adjustment to social context variables between psychopathic offenders, non-psychopathic offenders, and healthy controls [12].…”

“…The only study to additionally report UG data as proposers shows comparable offers between primary psychopaths and healthy controls [7]. Studies on UG gambling behavior in the role of the recipient yielded largely inconsistent findings, with one study indicating no group differences between psychopathic offenders and healthy controls [12] and another pointing to lower acceptance rates in primary psychopaths [7]. In contrast, a previous investigation in a community sample reported increased acceptance rates following unfair offers in individuals with high psychopathic traits [13] which points to an insensitivity to unfairness in high psychopathy scorers, whereas another community sampled study found no group differences [14].…”

Neural Correlates of the Propensity for Retaliatory Behavior in Youths With Disruptive Behavior Disorders

“…Participants are more likely to reject an unfair offer if the partner could have offered a fair allocation, but the magnitude of this effect is reduced in delinquents/offenders. 7,8 Another UG variant involves participants choosing whether to “punish” the partner by spending money to remove the partner’s money. Such behaviors expressed in this variant model retaliatory behavior in participants.…”